Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Disabled Persons (Mobility)

11.4 a.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition signed by 558 of my constituents and organised by the Brent Association for the Disabled. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled. Whereby the statement of the Secretary of State for the Social Services on 23rd July 1976 on mobility policy for the disabled causes your humble petitioners great concern in that it removes the assurance of continued independent mobility from those severely disabled persons now driving invalid tricycles, and condemns many new applicants for mobility assistance to be housebound as a result of the inadequate levels of the mobility allowance. Your humble petitioners pray that your honourable House call upon the Secretary of State for the Social Services to promote policies and propose such necessary legislation as will:

(a) Immediately guarantee the rights of continued independent mobility to current invalid tricycle drivers when the supply of tricycles is exhausted, in order to allay their great anxiety for the future.
(b) Restore immediately the option of a suitably adapted car or an invalid tricycle to new applicants for mobility assistance, under the powers granted to the Secretary of State for the Social Services by Section 33 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
(c) Actively promote projects to decision and produce specialised vehicles which will enable an increasing number of severely disabled people to enjoy independent mobility.
(d) Yourselves enact the legislation.

Further, your humble petitioners pray that your honourable House take all necessary steps to promote a total policy on mobility which would ensure that a choice is available to the severely disabled between a mobility allowance set at a level which will enable the purchase and maintenance of appliances that they need, the use of a specialised vehicle or the issue of a suitably adapted car; which policy should be implemented with all possible urgency.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

11.6 a.m.

Mrs. Helene Hayman: With your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I beg leave to present a petition in terms similar to that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). The widespread concern that there is throughout the country is shown by the petition, which carries signatures from constituencies throughout the nation. The cause of mobility for the disabled is one to which everyone in the House will give their sympathy.
I am pleased to be able to associate myself with this petition. I shall not repeat in full the terms but the theme of choice is the most important aspect. The petition calls on Parliament to
take all necessary steps to promote a total policy of mobility which will ensure that a choice is available to severely disabled people between a mobility allowance set at a level which will enable the purchase and maintenance of the appliances they need, the issue of a specialised vehicle or the issue of a suitably adapted car; which policy should be implemented with all possible urgency.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member, when presenting a petition to this House, to add to the presentation personal comments of that Member's own, whether or not they are in themselves innocuous? Hon. Members should surely do no more than rehearse the whole or part of the petition.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw my attention and that of the House to the lapse made on this occasion. Hon. Members are required to keep to the terms of the petition.

11.7 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition signed by 102 of my constituents in the Isle of Wight. I shall say nothing more than that I associate myself with the remarks of the two previous speakers.

To lie upon the Table.

OCEAN ISLAND AND BANABANS

11.8 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about Ocean Island and the Banabans. I apologise for its length but the issues are complex. On 24th January the House was told of the Government's intention to seek a settlement of the problems connected with Ocean Island and in particular the future of the Banaban community. To assist in achieving a solution Mr. Richard Posnett, the former Governor of Belize, was asked to visit the area. I am most grateful to Mr. Posnett for his valuable report on this long-standing and difficult problem. Copies of the report are now available in the Vote Office.
The Banaban concern is two-fold—constitutional and financial. On the former, the Banaban leaders have pressed for the detachment of Ocean Island from the Gilbert Islands, originally as an independent State, more recently as part of Fiji. We all recognise their deeply held views on this matter. Equally, the Government and people of the Gilbert Islands feel strongly that the island should continue to be part of the Gilbert Islands as it has effectively been for most of this century: indeed, from 1908 until the Second World War the seat of Government of the territory was on Ocean Island. Moreover, the island is some 1,400 miles from Fiji as compared with 240 miles from the Gilberts. There is only a small Banaban group—less than 100—now living on Ocean Island, and after phosphate mining ceases it would not be possible for the island to support more than a very small community. There are also strong legal, constitutional and historical objections to making territorial changes.
There can be no perfect solution, but given good will there can be an agreed compromise. My right hon. and noble Friend has been having discussions with Gilbertese Ministers this week about additional guarantees and safeguards which could be provided to the Banabans and assure them of a special autonomous position for Ocean Island within the Gilberts. The basis for such a relationship exists in the many close links of language, religion,

culture and marriage between the Banabans and other islands of the Gilberts.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I shall naturally also wish to discuss the constitutional issue with the Prime Minister of Fiji when he comes here for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, not least because the vast majority of the Banaban community has long been settled on Rabi Island, which is part of Fiji.
I wish to assure the House that no final decisions about the future status of Ocean Island will be made before the pre-independence constitutional conference for the Gilbert Islands. The Banabans will of course be asked to this conference and will be free to put forward their views. I shall keep the House informed of progress on this issue.
On the financial issues, the Banabans claim that Ocean Island phosphate was exploited on terms greatly to their disadvantage and they engaged in prolonged actions in the courts on those grounds. The Vice-Chancellor in his judgment found for the Crown but expressed considerable sympathy with the Banabans and felt that they had not always been treated as well as they should have been. I think everyone in this House is very conscious of the great hardship and privation they suffered during the Second World War and wishes to see the whole issue settled honourably.
We have been concerned for some time for the future of the Banabans after mining ends. We have therefore had consultations with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand, our partners on the Board of British Phosphate Commissioners, about how we can best help the Banaban community, who number some 2,500, secure their economic future on Rabi when phosphate revenues cease in 1979 or 1980.
The three Governments are prepared to make available on an ex gratia basis, and without admitting any liability, a sum of 10 million Australian dollars. The money would be used to establish a fund which will be preserved for the benefit of the Banaban community as a whole, the annual income being paid to the Rabi Council of Leaders for development and community purposes. The money would come from funds which are held by the


British Phosphate Commissioners on behalf of the partner Governments, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, and which would in the normal course of events have accrued to the respective Exchequers.
The payment would be final and would be made on condition that, in the outstanding legal actions, no appeal would be made in the case against the Crown and the early resolution of the cases against the BPC would be sought, and that no further claims would be made arising out of past events. The damages to be paid by the Phosphate Commissioners—damages which the Vice-Chancellor said should be neither merely nominal nor very large—are of course unconnected with, and would therefore be additional to, the ex gratia payment.
In the meantime, arrangements for the final phase of mining operations on Ocean Island, which are likely to terminate in 1979 or 1980, will clearly be of considerable importance to both the Banabans and the Gilberts Government. We shall be in touch with the Gilbert Islands Government about the best way of keeping the Banabans informed and involved at every stage and their interests adequately protected.
We regard the existing division of the phosphate revenues between the Gilbert Islands Government and the Banaban landholders as reasonable and do not envisage any alteration.
Other islands in the area have contributed in human terms to the Ocean Island phosphate industry, and the Government realise the need for help to those islands also when the industry comes to an end. We are giving further consideration to how this help might be given.
The Government have tried to meet the general concern expressed in both Houses of Parliament and elsewhere that the eventual solution should be fair to all parties. My right hon. and noble Friend in particular has shown a sympathy and understanding for the interests of all concerned in the region which have played a large part in securing this arrangement. The problems are difficult and legitimate interests conflict. But it is our hope that solutions may now be reached on the basis of compromise and co-operation between all the parties concerned.

Mr. John Davies: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and say that the House appreciates the fact that he has come forward at this time to make it, for many Members of the House are, as he knows, deeply anxious about the situation of the Banabans and their relationship with the Gilbert Islands and with phosphate production on Ocean Island?
The House will accept—and I hope that the Foreign Secretary, too, will accept—that we appreciate his endeavour to be even-handed in this matter. May I ask him, first, having regard to the fact that he states that his right hon. and noble Friend has been having discussions with Gilbertese Ministers this week, whether equivalent discussion has taken place with representatives of the Banaban community in relation to the proposals he is making?
Secondly, I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could elucidate somewhat further the figures he has given to the House. It is important, with the context of the 10 million Australian dollars he proposes as a compensatory fund, to know what are the total funds in the hands of the British Phosphate Commissioners at this time and how much more in the way of funds is likely to accrue to the Commissioners between now and the cessation of extraction? It is only in the light of the knowledge of those total figures that the reality and the satisfactory size of the 10 million Australian dollars can possibly be appreciated.
May we also thank the Foreign Secretary for his undertaking to keep the House informed in these matters? Many of us would greatly wish to know how the further discussion to which his statement refers proceed, particularly in the light of the acceptability of the compromise formula proposed by him in relation to the financial compensation to the Banaban community.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is an extremely difficult judgment to make and it is difficult to remain even-handed in this complex issue. Consultations with the Banabans will take place. We are always available for further consultations. As I made clear in my statement, there will be a constitutional conference.
The sum of money is to secure the economic future of the islands. It is not compensation. We estimate that the 10 million Australian dollars, invested now, would accumulate to 12 million dollars by the end of 1979 when the phosphates run out. This sum would give the benefits of unearned income of about 350 dollars per capita. This would be in addition to any earned income and any revenue produced by investing a further part of the 10 million dollars the Banabans are also likely to receive by way of phosphate revenue from 1st July 1976 until the end of mining.
I hope that that gives the basis of the statistics. The total fund currently stands at about 23 million dollars. Out of this the 10 million dollars would be taken. As I said, against that would have to be set whatever was for the replanting. We are giving further consideration to what can be done.

Mr. Thorpe: May we welcome the fact that this is at least some recognition of the claims of the Banabans, who unsuccessfully petitioned the House nearly 50 years ago? Having expressed that welcome, may we assume that it will be the right hon. Gentleman's resolve that this will be the last time that a small dependent people will have to pursue the British Government in the courts before their moral claims are met?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two further questions? First, will he tell us a little more about the 10 million dollars, which is a sum considerably less than that which was claimed? Is that to produce an infrastructure, to provide an adequate income? Are capital cash grants to be paid out? How is it to be done? Why should not the figure be paid out rather than have a fund set up?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that since the Vice-Chancellor has said that the British Government are in breach of a higher trust, we shall want to read very carefully the details of the fund when it is set up?

Dr. Owen: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said. I do not think that anyone looking back on history would claim that at all times all the right decisions have been made. We had to keep the matter in balance against a record of very difficult decision

making. When the Vice-Chancellor delivered his five-and-a-half day judgment—it was a very long judgment—he paid tribute to some of the decisions which had been taken. It is a question of balance. The exact way that the money will be used is obviously for consultation with the Banabans. We hope that a trust fund will be established and that we shall be able to safeguard the money to ensure that it will be used for the benefit of the Banaban community in future and not in any way squandered. This is for further discussions.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sum of 10 million Australian dollars appears rather low, as he told me on 24th February last that the Banabans had about 4 million Australian dollars in a single year—1974–75?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Gilbertese income per head is about half that of the Banabans' at present and that of the Solomon Islands one-quarter? In view of his statement, would it not be better for Her Majesty's Government to consider a proper settlement of the South Pacific as a whole with a view to British obligations being discharged there with clean hands and being seen to be so? Will he understand that some hon. Members do not think that that is the case in the statement that he has made, either in respect of the Banabans or in respect of other peoples throughout that zone of the Pacific?

Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to look at the South Pacific as a whole. I acknowledged in my statement that other islands had contributed to the Ocean Island phosphate industry and energy.
As to the question of the sum of 10 million Australian dollars, that is about £6½ million sterling, so it is not a negligible sum of money at the current exchange rate. It takes account of the fact that although the Banabans have received more than 7½ million Australian dollars in phosphate revenue over the last three years, they have, unfortunately, built up no reserve funds against the time when their revenue from Ocean Island will cease. We regard the existing division of phosphate revenues as reasonable. When hon. Members have time to read the very valuable report of Mr. Posnett, they will see that it provides


substantially more than the 7 million Australian dollars suggested by him.
I have given the figures of the difference, but I confirm what my hon. Friend said—that the Gilbert Islanders are receiving less than one-quarter of what on average is the income received by the Banabans.

Sir Bernard Braine: Whilst acknowledging the Foreign Secretary's desire to make amends for the sordid and shameful treatment that the Banabans have suffered for many years, may I ask whether he does not realise that the sum that he has mentioned is only about one-fifth of what the Banabans would have earned from their phosphates if they had been given proper advice and information in 1947 and if there had not been grave breaches of trust by Her Majesty's Government, and that the sum will do very little to right the injustice?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that proper restitution to the Banabans could be made if Ocean Island is returned to them now and the Gilbertese are generously compensated for loss of revenue from any remaining phosphates?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until Ocean Island is separated from the Gilberts and returned to the Banabans, neither they nor any of us who care about our country's good name will consider that justice has been done?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman has taken a very great interest in this area, and I pay tribute to that, but, as he knows, his views are not shared by all hon. Members on his side of the House nor on the Government side of the House. The fact is that it is a question of judgment between the constitutional position in particular and the Banabans, and whether it is a relationship with Fiji or with the Gilbert Islands is very controversial, and people genuinely hold different views. What the Government have tried to do is to bring about an honourable compromise on this subject.
As to the question of the sum of money, the sum is not a negligible sum. In the view of the three Governments—and I must stress that this has to be something that is agreed by three Governments; I pay tribute to the Australian and New Zealand Governments for their help in the discussions and negotiations

—this is a generous provision that will enable the Banabans to plan for their future on Rabi and finance that future, but it must take account of the per capita incomes of people in the area and the problems, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) drew attention, of the economic position of the whole of the South Pacific.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what we are talking about is the grossest and, one hopes, the last instance of imperial exploitation in this century, and that any settlement that we come to is very important for Britain's whole reputation in the whole of the South Pacific area? Is he aware that any financial arrangements that are made for the distribution of the money should not smack of British smug paternalism of the kind which, even in present negotiations with many islands in this area, is all too often present?
Further, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his keeping the constitutional position open, but will he tell us a little more about the constitutional position? Will he assure us that in the final resort he would not rule out an association with Fiji rather than one with the Gilbert Islands?

Dr. Owen: I have mentioned the special autonomous position. This has yet to be negotiated but, for instance, it could include an Ocean Island Council, elected fully by the Banabans, as the local government of Ocean Island, representation in the Gilberts House of Assembly, Gilbertese citizenship if the Banabans wished and the Government of Fiji agreed, special guarantees for Banaban rights on Ocean Island and for their share of the remaining phosphate revenue, and safeguarding all the Banabans' interests in the Ocean Island phosphate industry. This issue will have to be discussed. There will have to be a constitutional conference. When my hon. Friend has had the opportunity of reading the Posnett Report, I think that he will see the complexity. I know that he has raised the matter himself over the years.
As to the settlement, I do not come before the House saying that mistakes have not been made. Of course they have been made. One of the reasons for us trying to have an ex gratia payment is to settle this issue honourably. But I also


think that we ought not to give selective interpretations of the Vice-Chancellor's judgment on this issue. Nor should we fail to look at the record of Britain's involvement in the Pacific, taking it in its historical perspective, because it has been an honourable record.

Mr. Paul Dean: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the obvious co-operation from the Australian and New Zealand Governments in bringing about what seems to me to be a reasonable settlement for the Banabans. May I put two points to the right hon. Gentleman? The first concerns the financial arrangements. Will he give an assurance that the financial offer which is to be made to the Banabans will in no way adversely affect aid to the Gilbert Islands and the other countries in the area, including, of course, Tuvalu, Fiji and the Solomons?
Secondly, on the constitutional point, while welcoming the concept of autonomy for Ocean Island within the Gilbert Islands, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the real dangers of fragmentation, not only to the unity of the Gilbert Islands but also to the other island nations in that part of the world?

Dr. Owen: There is no question of an ex gratia payment being at the expense of the Gilberts. Our aid programme for the Gilberts is a continuing one and is increasingly directed towards revenue-earning projects, against the time when prosphate revenue ceases. Our capital aid on projects totals £2·2 million in the current financial year. In addition there is a substantial programme of about £1·5 million for technical co-operation.
On the question of fragmentation, there is widespread recognition in the Pacific of the dangers of fragmentation. More generally, also, concern about the implications of fragmentation of territories there has been expressed in the United Nations on a number of occasions.

Mr. Townsend: I also welcome the part being played by Australia and New Zealand in the settlement, but does it not fall far short of the generous payment that is called for in the circumstances, following many years of exploitation? Will he carefully consider allocating some of the settlement to the Gilbertese, who have a very strong case?

Dr. Owen: This is a subject for further consideration. I recognise the need for keeping a balance between the need to settle the Banaban issue honourably and the need to discharge our obligation to the whole South Pacific area—trying to set any ex gratia payment in relation to the economies of the countries and the per capita income of the people of the area and the very dire poverty that exists in some of the islands. It is a question of balance. We have tried, with the Australian and New Zealand Governments, to achieve the right balance. I hope that the House will agree that we have at least done our best.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the views expressed by my hon. Friends are held on both sides of the House? There is considerable anxiety over this matter, even on the part of those who have not studied it as closely as the right hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that it is vital that on this matter he gets the wholehearted support of this House and that failure to do so would prejudice the rapid and successful passage through this House of a Gilbertese independence Bill?

Dr. Owen: I readily acknowledge that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), who went out there with the hon. Gentleman to review this situation, would share many of his views. Of course there are different feelings about this. All I would ask is that hon. Gentlemen make a judgment on the ex gratia payment in relationship to the problem in existence in the South Pacific. I would urge hon. Gentlemen before forming a final judgment to read the Posnett Report. It is a very valuable and balanced account of the complex problems that we are dealing with, some of which were inherited and some for the future.

NUCLEAR POWER AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's response to the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, entitled "Nuclear Power and the Environment", Cmnd. 6618. The


response is published today in the form of a White Paper, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
Last September I welcomed the Royal Commission's Report as a major contribution to the debate which is taking place in this country, and throughout the world, on the proper rôle of nuclear power. The Royal Commission concluded that the abandonment of nuclear fission power would be neither wise nor justified. But it expressed concern about certain risks it believed would be involved in a large-scale commitment to nuclear power several decades from now, particularly if it involved fast reactors. It makes a number of specific recommendations for the future, and the Government, as the White Paper shows, have decided to accept the bulk of these.
In the short term we shall need to take decisions about the thermal reactor programme and thereafter on policy towards the further development of the fast reactor. These decisions would not involve any commitment on the part of the Government to a large additional nuclear power programme, which was the Royal Commission's prime consideration.
The extent of our eventual commitment can be resolved only in decisions taken progressively over the years in the light of national need, and of the acceptability to the country at large of the possible economic, social and environmental impact of an extended nuclear programme. For the present, it is important that the Government should examine carefully the adequacy of the arrangements for supervising and controlling the use of nuclear power. It is equally important that we should undertake what ever research is necessary and should provide the framework for public debate on future developments.
The Royal Commission was broadly satisfied with the present radiological safety standards, with the arrangements for enforcing them, and with the system for controlling releases of radioactivity into the environment. On the other hand, it considered that much more attention should in future be paid to the management of radioactive wastes. The Government accept that an overall long-term strategy is needed and that waste management problems must be dealt with before any large additional nuclear programme

is undertaken of the kind about which the Commission was concerned. They further accept that departmental responsibility for nuclear waste management policy should be independent of departmental responsibility for energy policy. The Prime Minister has, therefore, decided that I, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, should be responsible for civil nuclear waste management policy.
We have already taken steps to review present policy for the management of civil nuclear wastes. We shall ensure that there is adequate research into methods of disposal and adequate research on, and monitoring of, radioactivity in the environment. We shall assume control of the waste management element of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's research and development budget. The Government will consider whether further statutory powers are needed to help in carrying out this new responsibility and, if so, will bring forward proposals.
A Nuclear Waste Management Advisory Committee will be set up and will submit an annual report, which will be laid before Parliament. This will make a wider range of advice available to the Government, as the Royal Commission recommended. Following the current review, and after consulting the new Advisory Committee, the Royal Commission's proposals for a Nuclear Waste Disposal Corporation will be considered further.
The Government are taking a number of other measures, as described in the White Paper, to make more information available about nuclear matters, and so help public discussion.
The Royal Commission drew special attention to the possibility that plutonium derived from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy might pass into the hands of terrorist groups and to the possibility that it might lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the hands of other national Governments. The primary aim of British nuclear export policy is to ensure that no export of nuclear material or equipment from the United Kingdom adds to the danger of proliferation. The Government intend to play a full part in any programme for international fuel cycle evaluation, and will participate in the study


group set up by the Downing Street Summit. Security measures against terrorist groups in connection with the transport and storage of plutonium have been greatly strengthened over the last two years. The position will be reviewed at regular intervals. As regards nuclear systems, the Government will ensure that full attention is given to security at the planning and design stages, not only to reduce the risk of successful terrorist action but to minimise the need for any measures which could be regarded as a threat to civil liberties.
The Royal Commission's views on energy policy will be taken into account in a Green Paper which the Government intend to publish later this year. The Government accept the Royal Commission's view that the development of alternative energy sources should be undertaken with greater vigour, and they are actively pursuing possibilities for energy conservation as a contribution to the efficient overall use of resources. The Government consider that there is a need for a high-level independent body to advise me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on the interaction between energy policy and the environment and are considering what form it should take.
The Royal Commission was strongly of the view that decisions on major questions of nuclear development should take place by explicit political process. One approach to this is the holding of public inquiries on specific projects like the one I have arranged into the building of an oxide reprocessing plant at Windscale, which is due to open on 14th June. As for wider public debate, the Government will consider the most suitable kind of special procedure to achieve this. They accept that, before any decision is taken on a first commercial-scale fast reactor this procedure shall be settled and announced.
Her Majesty's Government are grateful to Sir Brian Flowers and his colleagues for all their work in producing this report. For the detailed response to their individual conclusions and recommendations, I refer the House to the White Paper.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State recognise that this is a subject of massive public concern? The need

for a wide public debate is probably not best served by a statement on a Friday before the recess. Will he urge upon his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as part of the process of the wide public debate, that there must now be an early debate in this House on the profound issues raised by the Flowers Report and which are covered by his statement and the White Paper today?
Can the Secretary of State explain with some greater precision exactly what he means by a greater vigour in the development of alternative energy sources? He has pointed to the danger of nuclear waste falling into terrorist hands. Will he now say that he is satisfied with the security measures in force covering the transportation of nuclear waste materials between sites within the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some further indication whether the White Paper published today goes further than he was able to go in his statement, in that the statement includes a number of good but rather vague assurances of further intentions? Can we look forward in the White Paper to seeing more precision about the timing of those intentions?

Mr. Shore: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman this is a subject which requires intense and continuing public debate. I look upon the White Paper and my statement today as only the beginning of such a process. I shall certainly undertake to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House what I agree is a clear need for a debate in this House.
I would make the additional point that I was aware, and greatly regret, that I have had to make this statement on a Friday. I would have much preferred to make it yesterday, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that I have been somewhat caught in the time scale between President Carter's major statement of policy, the No. 10 Summit—which obviously had certain implications for nuclear policy—and my own desire to publish this White Paper before the Windscale inquiry opens on 14th June. That is the reason I have taken this rather exceptional step of making a major statement on a Friday.
Let me reply to the two questions asked by the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him


about employing greater vigour in examining alternative sources of energy. That is absolutely right. I believe that the programme, which involves examining wave power and solar energy, is very important. I know that this view is strongly shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who will have more to say on this matter.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the dangers that may be posed in regard to terrorist activity related to the transport of nuclear materials are again important considerations. It would be wrong for me at this stage to say that I am entirely satisfied and content, because that would be a wrong attitude for any Minister to take on this matter, but if the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I believe that we have taken measures designed to strengthen security in this area of activity, I would reply in the affirmative. It is a matter that I shall take up a good deal further and in greater detail in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Palmer: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that some parts of the Flowers Report are ambiguous and occasionally contradictory? It appears to accept a much larger nuclear programme than we are now providing. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that this proposed new machinery—I accept its good intentions—will not be another impediment in the way of the British nuclear industry doing the job which the country badly needs to be done in the interests of our industrial future?

Mr. Shore: I accept that on certain matters dealt with in the Flowers Report there is almost an inevitable ambiguity, given the complexity of the subject, but that should not detract from the great value of the report. If the report has done nothing else it has justified the existence and establishment of the Royal Commission seven years ago.
I agree that the subject of the larger programme is important and that in terms of what was envisaged in the report, which is described as an alternative energy policy, there would be a substantial increase in the nuclear contribution over and above what is already planned.
I do not consider inquiries into the major forward stages of the development of nuclear policy are an impediment. The

time scale of these developments makes it possible for us, if we set about matters carefully, to make inquiries that do not stand in the way of decisions which otherwise we might wish to take on industrial or energy grounds. I believe that by having inquiries and by taking the public more into our confidence than we have in the past, we shall in the long run make it easier for ourselves to make progress and to have an energy policy that best suits this country.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that we generally welcome his statement today, which seems particularly pertinent following reports in yesterday's newspapers that there had been 22 leakages and spillages in atomic waste in the first three months of this year—information which emanates from the Health and Safety Executive? Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department be represented at the Windscale inquiry, and will it be prepared to be examined on the White Paper? We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments about examining the possibility of achieving wider public debate before the first fast reactor begins, but will he consider setting up a public inquiry planning commission? Will that be one of the alternatives?

Mr. Shore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the general welcome he gives to the statement. I agree with him that the matter of leakages and spillages is important. I find it reassuring that the new machinery of the Health and Safety Executive was able to report to the public on these minor matters. This is not a confidence-destroying way of proceeding; it is confidence-building.
I have to be a little careful in answering the hon. Gentleman's question about Windscale, but if the inspector wishes the attendance of officials from my Department and wants to examine them, that will be arranged. I believe that under the rules of the inquiry it will be proper for my officials to explain and deal with technical matters which arise, but policy matters will properly be left to me as the Minister concerned.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the kind of debate that was envisaged and whether the Planning Inquiry Commission procedure has a rôle. That might be the best way of proceeding. However, we have not used it before,


although that does not mean that we should not use it.
The matter was discussed in 1968 and the planning inquiry commission procedure envisaged two stages of the inquiry. One involved discussion of general issues, rather as the Flowers Commission discussed the general development of nuclear power. That was to be followed by a second stage, on the lines of the inquiry which I have set up at Windscale. The larger policy programme flowed from a combination of those two matters—specific questions as to where, and the implications of a particular decision. That might provide the best way of proceeding. I am considering the matter further and would welcome comments on this subject.

Mr. Abse: May I thank the Minister for his statement? May I join with him in paying tribute to the Chairman of the Flowers Commission for producing what some of us regard not as an ambiguous report but as one of the most fateful reports, probably, in our generation? is it not clear from the report that the escalation into a plutonium economy by this country, with all the current dangers of sabotage and terrorist theft which would undoubtedly result, would involve the most severe encroachments on civil liberties which have ever taken place in this land if anything like adequate security arrangements were to be made? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential, in involving the public and taking them into the Government's confidence, that we stress again and again that the price of being lured into a plutonium economy means that our democracy will change qualitatively and that we may well be subject to the era originally envisaged in Orwell's "1984"?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend was absolutely right to pay tribute in the way he did to the Flowers Commission and the great importance of its report. The Commission was concerned with two major issues. One involves the implications of a plutonium economy in any country that goes in for large-scale nuclear energy, and particularly for fast breeder reactors. The implications of that decision stretch the mind. The implications of dealing with highly active waste, which has a life that goes far beyond our history, means

that we are entering an era in which we have a duty to the future to provide the utmost care before we make decisions in this sphere. I accept that.
I accept also that because of the importance of the material with which we are dealing and because of the potential dangers involved, the question of security is of vital importance and interlocks with the question of civil liberty. How to find the right balance between the two, however, will be one of the subjects which I am sure will be debated—and, I hope, debated very thoroughly—in this House this year and in later years.

Mr. Christopher Price: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and intensity with which he is approaching this subject? May I remind him that there is a wide and growing feeling, not only in Great Britain but throughout the Western world, that this drift into the plutonium economy not only involves a danger to civil liberties but could involve a drift into the dangers of nuclear war? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time will come when we have to make a decision whether to pull back or whether to go irrevocably forward? Can he assure us that when that day of decision comes the Government will make clear that an irrevocable decision is being taken and will not allow the sort of drift to take place whereby, later on, an announcement is made that it is too late to abandon the plutonium economy and rely on other more humane sources of energy?

Mr. Shore: I assure my hon. Friend that I have no intention of just drifting into major decisions that affect the environment and the future in the development of nuclear energy. Indeed, I do not believe that any Minister exercising this responsibility would allow that to happen. What I have been concerned with is setting out various subjects and various procedures by which we can avoid the very drift that my hon. Friend fears.
My hon. Friend spoke of the dangers of the spread of plutonium, the risk of proliferation and the risk of nuclear threat and war. That, of course, requires action on an international scale, and I am sure that he welcomes, as I do, the new vigour that has been imparted into the debate by the initiative to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials


that President Carter has launched, and in which, of course, the British Government are most anxious to co-operate.

Mr. Greville Janner: I accept that we must of course exercise the utmost care, since we have clear duties to the future in that respect, and that the perils of nuclear proliferaton may place hideous weapons in the hands of terrorists, but do we not also owe a duty to the future of the country in ensuring that adequate energy is available to meet the needs of our people, that employment is kept up, and that the country remains alive and flourishing? In the circumstances, can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that in the nuclear plans he has put forward there will be sufficient nuclear and other energy available to replace North Sea oil and gas when those resources are exhausted?

Mr. Shore: It is not for me to give any final judgment on that question, certainly not this morning, but my hon. and learned Friend is right to bring into the equation the other major national interest of securing an adequate supply of of energy. That is, as it were, the other half of the story. My hon. and learned Friend is right to bring it back into the picture. I do not think that we should be complacent about our energy position, but we are somewhat better placed than many other countries, and I believe, therefore, that we can investigate the matter and assure ourselves, in a way that may not be available to others, about the right way to proceed in the development of nuclear supplies.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If the public inquiry is to be a major factor in the great debate, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the objectors will have sufficient resources available to them to make a good presentation of their case? Is he satisfied that some contracts for alternative sources of energy will go to those firms which at the moment are suffering a considerable shortage of work because of the great debate on nuclear energy?

Mr. Shore: It is not for me to speak about the timetabling, as it were, of the development of resources, and perhaps even the development of alternative sources of energy. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. 
My hon. Friend asked whether objectors would have the necessary resources. I understand the problem that inquiries pose for objectors, but I am not convinced that it would be right to depart from the practices that we have followed ever since the Council on Tribunals reviewed this question in 1964. I believe that there is sufficient sense of the importance of these developments among professional and expert people to ensure that there will be available to the inquiry men of distinction on either side of the argument who will be prepared to come forward and put their points of view. I believe that we shall get a very thorough inquiry, if my hon. Friend is referring to Windscale, as I think he is.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: In view of the risks of a plutonium-based economy, will the right hon. Gentleman consider urgently the question not only of such energy sources as solar energy—there is a successful example of it in my constituency, at Kinloch Rannoch, where plants are heated by it—but whether such supplies as oil resources, which are given limits based on economic factors, could be more cheaply expanded than an expansion of the nuclear programme, which would have to supplement them when it was regarded as no longer economic to extract them?

Mr. Shore: I am interested to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the promising development of solar energy in his area. I believe that it is one of the developments well worth pursuing in the future. The best use of our energy resources, including oil, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy rather than for me.

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the matter of the Proposal for a draft Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee.—[Mr. Graham.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 827) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Graham.]

PRESIDENT OF UGANDA

11.58 a.m.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: I beg to move,
That this House would not welcome the presence of the President of Uganda at the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference.
One is deeply conscious of the great luck that one has when No. 63 comes out of the Ballot and one is entitled to move a motion in the House. I have thought deeply about what subject that we should debate. I think that most hon. Members have had a considerable amount of correspondence from their constituents and others about the question of the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference and whether President Amin should be allowed into this country.
My thoughts on the subject are obviously concerned deeply with the plight of those British citizens who are in Uganda and are today, one believes, being paraded in Kampala. Therefore, the wording of my motion is deliberately very mild. I merely wish to give the House of Commons a chance to express its opinion and to tell Her Majesty's Government that we do not wish this man to come. I hope that anything that is said in this House today will not have an adverse effect on the lives of those few hundred British citizens who are still living in Uganda.
However, I think it right that we should pass this motion. I believe that it will be supported by both sides of the House, because this is not the same as letting in a man from Russia, or letting in a Head of State of a South American totalitarian State, or even, as some hon. Members on the Government Benches would say, letting in somebody from a country such as the Republic of South Africa. All those people are not members of the Commonwealth.
What is the Commonwealth? I think that we would do well to look at this in the light of the fact that, amongst other things, this week has seen the coming and going of 24th May, Empire Day. I remember when I was the same age as my small children standing in front of the Union Jack on 24th May saluting and singing "Land of hope and glory", and there are many of us who think that would be no bad thing.
The Empire has gone, and we now have a Commonwealth. The nations of the Commonwealth are a wide and varied section of world opinion. There is the old white Commonwealth of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. There is the great Indian Empire, now, alas, split into two nations. And there are the new countries of Africa. Let us make this quite clear. We all realise that there is no democracy in any of the black African Commonwealth States.
I remember saying in a speech some years ago that in black Africa it is a question of one man one vote, once, and then the president of that country is the one man who has one vote and who rules. That is the way in which the Africans run their affairs. They are totally different from us. Giving a black African nation a Speaker's Chair, a Table and a Mace will not give it Westminster parliamentary democracy as we know it. These are people who are totally different from ourselves.
What is the ideal behind the Commonwealth? If the Commonwealth means anything—and one sometimes doubts whether it means anything at all—it must be that it is a getting together of people from all five continents of the world to discuss, to plan and to think about the future of people, no matter how different their approach may be to problems.
But this man, the President of Uganda, is, I submit, totally different from any other head of any other country in the Commonwealth, and time is not on our side. The Government will have to make a decision on this question in the course of the next two weeks. It may be that the Foreign Secretary will announce a decision today, but even if he does not today tell the House the Government decision on whether to admit this man into our country he will have to tell the House and the nation very soon, because it is now a matter of only a couple of weeks before the Commonwealth leaders assemble in London.
In Uganda today there is a complete and utterly totalitarian police State. The Russian influence in Uganda is great indeed, and all the refinements of a Communist Government's method of running a country have been imported into Uganda—all the refinements of torture, and all the refinements of repression—and I think that we would do well to


remember that Russian influence on the Continent of Africa is very great indeed.
I cannot help but draw a contrast between what goes on in Uganda and what is happening in, say, Rhodesia. In Rhodesia there is a moderate Government in a multi-racial State. The Government there are trying to maintain law and order by normal, decent Western methods, and I find it very sad that the Minister of State should go to Mozambique to discuss matters with those who harbour and shelter the guerrillas who are murdering blacks and whites alike in Rhodesia.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: And going, incidentally, in the week when all the Europeans have either to escape from the country or be interned.

Mr. Brotherton: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. It must be remembered that it is not just this week, but this very day.

Mr. James Johnson: Would the hon. Gentleman put into purdah or attempt to forbid Her Majesty's Ministers from seeing anyone or attending any conference at which there was anyone on a certain list who was alleged to be doing things that he, the hon. Gentleman, does not like? Is that what he is after?

Mr. Brotherton: I am not in favour of Her Majesty's Ministers working in cahoots with murderers who kill Rhodesians, black and white. If the hon. Gentleman likes such people, be it on his own head.
Today we had the news that some paraplegic Rhodesians, black and white, are not to be allowed into this country. If we are to ban four white Rhodesians and four black Rhodesians from coming to this country to take part in the Paraplegic Olympic Games, I submit that we should not allow President Amin to come in.
I remember the Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, admitting in this House, that there were double standards. The double standards that are abroad in the world today are totally, completely and utterly terrifying, and the double standards of the United Nations are something that I find very difficult to stomach.
I draw the attention of the House to a leading article in The Times of Wednesday, 18th May about the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations headed
Human Rights Commission shirks its job".
The article said that the United Nations are always happy to condemn Chile, South Africa and Rhodesia, but whenever it is a black African State that is involved the Commission seems to shirk its responsibilities and talk in the most equivocal terms. The article went on to say that the Commission was quite active in respect of South Africa, Chile and some other countries which its membership agree are inhumanely oppressive regimes, and it added
For the Human Rights Commission to live up to its title by a strong resolution, white men have to torment and debase black men",
but there is never any question of bringing to book black men who perpetrate atrocities against their fellow citizens.
It is not my intention to detain the House for very long because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) has an important motion that he wishes to move and which is a matter of great concern to my constituents, but I should like to give the House five examples of why I believe Amin should not be allowed into this country.
First, there is the question of the murder of his wife. Secondly, the House will recall the arrest and imprisonment about two years ago of Mr. Hills. I believe that on that occasion the Prime Minister, who was then Foreign Secretary, behaved in an absolutely exemplary manner. I remember his performing in the House in what I thought was a masterly manner, and I know that many of my constituents thought that the right hon. Gentleman proved himself in that instance to be a great Englishman.
Thirdly, there is the question of the hijacking at Entebbe. There is no shadow of doubt that President Amin was with the hijackers and was on their side. There is no doubt, also, that the vast majority of people in this country saluted the Government of Israel when they released those who were trapped at Entebbe. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is particularly interested in this matter, because I believe that he represents the


relations of Mrs. Bloch, the woman who was murdered by the Amin régime in Uganda. There is also the question of the murder of the Archbishop of Uganda, and I know that the British Council of Churches and the Conference of the British Missionary Societies are particularly interested in this matter. We know that the Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned President Amin. The Archbishop of Canterbury is on record as saying that he believes that this man should not be admitted to this country.
Finally, we have the report, issued 10 days ago, from the International Commission of Jurists. I do not think that it could ever be said that I would be likely to be on the same side of the political divide as Mr. Whittaker, of that organisation. The evidence given to the Human Rights Commission by the International Commission of Jurists is so overwhelming that I believe that this motion will commend itself to the House. The overwhelming majority of the people in the country have no desire to allow this murderous tyrant to come to our shores.

12.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): This is a Private Member's motion, and I have to say at the outset that I congratulate the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on the tone of his speech and the moderate way in which he introduced the motion. I know that he feels extremely strongly about this issue. It is not always necessary for the Government to state a view on a Private Member's motion, but I thought that on this occasion, in view of the considerable anxiety that exists, that it was right for me to explain to the House the Government's position.
There can be little doubt about the sentiments that will find general expression in the House during the course of this debate. Right hon. and hon. Members have expressed themselves on previous occasions firmly and clearly on this subject over a considerable period. There can be no doubt about the strength of feeling in the House and in the country at large. It seems wholly appropriate that the House of Commons and private Members should have an opportunity, before the Heads of Government meeting,

to make their views quite clear to the Government.
The Government will listen to what is said. Hon. Members will appreciate that this is an extremely delicate matter for the Commonwealth as a whole. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which they have handled this delicate issue. I believe that Mr. Ramphal, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, distinguished very well, in his speech of 25th May to the Diplomatic and Commonwealth Writers' Association, between the Commonwealth aspect and the responsibility of the host Government to make every effort to ensure that the Heads of Government Conference takes place in an appropriate atmosphere.
In the last analysis the decision must lie with the Government. We shall not put our responsibilities on to other shoulders. We shall take those decisions. We shall make any decisions that are necessary over the question of President Amin's proposed attendance at the Heads of Govment meeting so as to protect and to further the overall interests of the Commonwealth. Given this background and the delicate issues involved, I ask the House to accept that it would not be in the interests of the Commonwealth if at this stage I were to say more than that it is still the Government's hope that, in the interests of the Commonwealth, President Amin will decide not to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London next month.

Mr. Greville Janner: While I accept the way in which my right hon. Friend approaches this problem and his difficulties, which arise from the delicacy of the situation, may I ask him to be good enough to assure the House that if President Amin does maintain his intention to come, and if the British Government decide that he should not be admitted, my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the strong feeling in the House and in the country against the admission of representatives of the President if the President is excluded? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would feel that it is no answer to exclude the African Hitler but to admit his Goebbels or Hess?

Dr. Owen: I recognise that that is a view. However, I noted carefully what the hon. Member for Louth said when he pinpointed his anxiety in the motion and in his speech. It may well be that others have anxieties on other aspects. I do not deny that. I should make it clear that there is no suggestion on our part that Uganda, as a member country of the Commonwealth, should be excluded from this or other Commonwealth meetings altogether. That would be a major decision to make. That would be a decision which, in my judgment, would gravely damage the Commonwealth. It would be a decision, in my judgment, which would certainly ensure that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference did not take place. It would be a decision, in my judgment, which it would be much harder for the host Government to justify.
Not all Heads of Government are always able to attend these meetings, and it is not uncommon for delegations to be led by someone other than the Head of Government. This is what has happened in the case of Uganda at the last two Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. I should remind the House that this problem is one that other Governments, too, have faced. They, too, have hoped that the question would not arise. In the last two Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings this situation did not confront the host Government. All other factors aside, there is something to be said for such a practice when, as in this case, there are no diplomatic relations with that host Government.

Mr. John Page: If there were to be a representative from Uganda, presumably someone representing the President, I would have thought that he should be accorded some kind of observer status or observer-plus-speaking status. It would be unsatisfactory if such a person were to attend in the same capacity as another representative who was representing a Commonwealth leader who could not attend because of illness. Any representative of President Amin would, under those circumstances, be taking part in the social and other occasions surrounding the meeting.

Dr. Owen: I respect the views of the hon. Member, as I respect the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). These are views which no doubt will be

expressed in this House and by citizens in this country as they are perfectly entitled to do—in marked contrast to the situation existing in some other countries we are discussing.
The issue is not one just for this Government. We are a member of the Commonwealth. All of these points could be put in the Conference and discussed there. The spirit of the Commonwealth is that we make decisions by consensus. There is this great problem for a host country of what decisions it should take unto itself. We shall take our decisions against the background of what we think will strengthen and further the principles on which the Commonwealth is based. We have already made a decision, as a single Government, to break off diplomatic relations.
Amid all the general concern that has been expressed in the House and the country generally about this question, it is right to recall that the United Kingdom has always enjoyed good relations with the people of Uganda. It was only after very careful consideration and with the greatest reluctance that we broke diplomatic relations in July of last year because of the impossibility of maintaining working relations with President Amin. That was a decision we had to take.
We know that the British community in Uganda has been through many trials in recent years. It was told, when we broke diplomatic relations, that there was a clear limit to our ability to protect it. It is right that we should not only express our gratitude to the French Government for accepting responsibility to protect our interests in Uganda but should congratulate them on the way in which this task is being carried out.
At all times I have to bear in mind my responsibilities to do what I can for those British citizens in Uganda and not to provoke a situation that would affect them. I feel sure that at this time members of the British community who have decided to stay on in Uganda in full knowledge of the risks have sensibly been concerned to follow developments and to make their own decisions. It is not for me to make that decision for them. It is for them.

Mr. James Johnson: Is it the Minister's intention, before he sits down, to say


anything about the fact-finding tour being made by Lord Thomson, whom the Secretary of State, with his usual forethought, has asked to ascertain the consensus among our sister Commonwealth States about this delicate and sticky business?

Dr. Owen: I was intending to say something about Lord Thomson's mission. Lord Thomson was sent as the personal emissary of the Prime Miniter. This has been a precedent established at previous Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. He went primarily to discuss the agenda for the forthcoming meeting. I hope that despite all the genuine concern about this issue of President Amin we shall not allow ourselves to be diverted from the central purpose of the Commonwealth.
There are many serious and important issues to be discussed at the meeting. That is why we wish to make our decision in the light of ensuring, first, that the Conference can take place and, secondly, that it can take place in a spirit of reasonableness and understanding so that these important issues will be discussed objectively and fairly.
By its nature, Lord Thomson's visit included discussions on the whole question of Uganda, but that was only one of many important issues that he raised with the Heads of Government. His purpose as a personal emissary was that the Heads of Government could say to him what they would have said to the Prime Minister if he had had enough time to see them all about the meeting. The content of what was said must remain private and personal, but it has been important background, allied to the information that we have heard from our diplomatic missions and high commissioners in the field. In forming any judgment—and it is our judgment; we cannot duck out of it because the decision must be taken by the host Government—we shall constantly bear in mind the findings of Lord Thomson's tour. It was an extremely successful tour. Lord Thomson is a highly experienced former Member of this House, an experienced diplomat, who is widely respected in the Commonwealth. His views and findings have been before the Government at all times and the Prime Minister and I have

discussed the issue with him on a number of occasions.
I do not think that I should say as much today as I should wish, or as I have said in various other forums, about human rights. Hon. Members will be under no doubt about my view and the Government's position. We have made that clear in the House, and, in reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Louth, I should remind hon. Members that I have made clear that I am extremely dissatisfied with the United Nations Commission of Human Rights procedures that were followed. I do not believe that this matter can be allowed to rest.
In his speech to the United Nations Economic and Social Council on 5th May our permanent representative to the United Nations repeated our concern to see effective use of the established procedures. We shall do all we can to try to reform the procedures and to ensure that other member Governments of the United Nations face up to the problems and use the existing machinery. In many ways, it is not so much a problem of the procedure as a simple matter of persuading other Governments to explore and examine it. The report of the jurists has rightly caused considerable concern, and this issue will continue long after the problem that we are discussing has been resolved.
The House has been extremely patient, and I shall stay to listen to what hon. Members have to say, but I thought it right that I should intervene early in the debate. I do not intend to be drawn into hypothetical questions about what will or will not be done. Decisions that may have to be taken will be taken on one basic criterian—whether they will serve the interests of the Commonwealth.

12.23 p.m.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the Foreign Secretary's thoughtful and carefully-prepared statement, which we all listened to with interest. When considering what to say in the debate, I thought that I would congratulate the Government because my views were similar. However, as I listened to the Foreign Secretary, I found that I was rapidly disengaging from the Government's position.


I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) for giving us the opportunity to debate a foreign affairs issue. To many of us such opportunities appear few and fleeting. My hon. Friend has chosen a topic of growing public interest at home that has been poorly handled by the international community.
I knew Uganda before it became independent and, having talked with Milton Obote, I find Amin a most unrepresentative leader of his countrymen, who have a natural grace and gentleness. The swift end of Amin's tyranny is the earnest desire of all Africans, especially Ugandans. The House would be wise to remember the early stand taken by the All-African Church Council headed by a Liberian, Canon Burgess-Carr; that President Nyerere was the first national leader to call Amin a murderer—at a time when Britain and Israel were helping Amin to consolidate his position; that Kenya was the first country to attempt an economic blockade of Uganda; and that Ugandans have made at least nine attempts to assassinate their president.
I have tried before to draw attention in the House to the fact that Russian support for Amin is one of the main reasons for his survival. Such support is both cynical and sinister. It is a calculated piece of big power politics. As a writer in the Observer put it, the Russians see
a chance of getting a political foothold in a part of the world where they have been outmanoeuvred by the subtler policies of Peking".
More than 1,300 Ugandan soldiers, airmen and technicians have been sent for training to Eastern Europe. No doubt the Russians hope one day to be able to influence the character of a future military régime led by a cadre of Marxist officers.
A sophisticated secret service has been established on Soviet lines. It has enabled Amin's special police to operate with greater selectivity and refinement of methods. An article in the Observer last summer commented:
A reasonable estimate of Soviet military aid puts the figure at 12 MiG fighters and bombers, 60 light tanks, 100 armoured personnel carriers, 50 anti-aircraft guns, 200 anti-tank weapons and 850 bombs and rockets. Amin says the supply of Russian arms has 'improved the balance of power in Africa' which is his way of saying that he is making Uganda the Prussia of East Africa.

As one who believes that human rights cannot be regarded solely as the internal affairs of individual countries but must be the concern of all of us, as individuals, and of particular concern to those international bodies that have the capacity to act, I approach the question of human rights in Uganda with a sense of anguish bordering on despair. From his courageous Archbishop to his first wife, Amin knows no mercy. He kills, and he causes to be killed. As a leader in The Times observed:
There comes a point at which numbers in organised State massacres fail to register on the mind. It is the localised atrocity, not the statistical enormity, that produces horror.
All this has gone on almost in public. Uganda is not behind the Iron Curtain, and many refugees have managed to cross the borders. The Geneva-based lawyers of the International Commission of Jurists have carefully studied the evidence. Their findings have been presented as reports to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Consideration of their first paper was delayed for nearly two years. Three more communications were kept from the Commission for procedural reasons. A lengthy fifth document lay on the United Nations table for nine months, during which time Uganda became a member of that Commission—a cynical twist to events.
The Commission has borne the hopes of all who believe that the dignity of man stands on values that transcend national frontiers. It has crashed hopelessly to the ground. It has shown indifference to the sufferings of mankind. It has made a mockery of human rights. It has done a great disservice to the United Nations.
What more should be done about this maniac, who, since seizing power in 1971, has killed 100,000 men, women and children? The first prority is for him to be removed from power, but that must be an internal matter. We must leave it to his countrymen, who will no doubt be supported by neighbouring countries, to do that for us. But the international community must be far more decisive than it has been up until now. Here I part company with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. International dissociation must be extended. We were right to break off diplomatic relations with Uganda, although I thought that it was done too late. We should press for the immediate


suspension, not expulsion, of Uganda from the Commonwealth. That might encourage local opposition.
It must be mentioned that the Organisation of African Unity has a miserable record on this tyrant. It ignores the human rights issue, allows President Amin to preside over its Summit, and defends him in the United Nations. I find it hard to give the reasons for this. It may be immaturity, or the feeling that the members of the OAU must all hold hands together against pressures from outside. I do not know the reasons but clearly we must diplomatically try to persuade the OAU to face up to its international responsibilities, because it is in a special position to put pressure on the President of Uganda.
Up to now I have had no criticisms of the Government's handling of the visit itself. Let there be the maximum coordination behind the scenes within the Commonwealth, and an unsettling uncertainty for the President of Uganda. If, in a few days' time, it can be seen that the suspension of Uganda is supported within the Commonwealth, it will be a satisfactory conclusion to months of diplomatic manoeuvres.
In reality, there must be no question of President Amin's coming to Britain. That would be deeply offensive to the Queen and her subjects. I know that it would be deeply offensive to my constituents. As a proud and a free sovereign State, we have a basic right and perhaps a duty to refuse entry to mass murderers and their henchmen. I make it clear that his Foreign Minister would be totally unacceptable as a replacement. We do not wish to greet a Himmler standing in for a Hitler.
There are those hon. Members who see recent Ugandan history as representative of the post-colonial pattern in Africa, but I am not one of them. On the contrary, conditions in Uganda are totally unlike those prevailing in the rest of East Africa. I see a real danger to the future of such countries as Zambia, Sudan, Zaire and Kenya if Amin, supported by Soviet arms and unconcealed savagery, survives for another six years. He has openly expressed his aim to liberate Cape Town and, more seriously, to open a corridor to the coast to secure

a port at Tanga. Uganda Radio has recently canvassed the possibility that it might be necessary to extend Ugandan territory to the Kagera River, to the west of Lake Victoria. Heaven knows what other grandiose military schemes swirl through his crazed head! But his Russian tanks and his dislike of President Nyerere add up to a serious threat of confrontation within East Africa, the flames of which could spread far and wide.
Britain must convince moderate African countries of the real perils that face them, and stir up international action, including sanctions, against this dictatorship. This is the heart of the matter, and this is what our debate should be about. Those of us who have closely studied foreign policy between the wars, when sanctions were frequently called for and national economies were not so interlocked, are continually surprised that international sanctions are not given more consideration by the Governments of today.
Amin is the rogue elephant of Africa. Sanctions, beginning with oil sanctions, present our best hope of destroying him. I call on the British Government to take the lead in working for international sanctions against Uganda.

12.35 p.m.

Mr. William Whitlock: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I did not find the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) entirely moderate. He attacked the Commonwealth, an organisation which I believe is still of great significance in the world today. He portrayed Rhodesia as a model democracy, which I find completely laughable. I profoundly disagree with some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I shall not be tempted to go into those wider matters because I support the motion that he moved, and I wish to indicate how far I support it.
I believe—as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said—that the overwhelming majority of British people do not want President Amin to come to this country. This corrupt and savagely inhuman monster, with his maniac delusions of grandeur, must not be allowed to poison British soil with his presence. To allow him to come would


be as bad as allowing Hitler to come here if that Nazi dictator were found to be alive today. If President Amin came he would want to bring an army of men as bodyguards, men whose hands are as red with the blood of innocent people as are the hands of President Amin himself. They obviously would not hold their jobs if they were not as vicious as the President himself.
All the evidence shows that there has been a complete breakdown of the rule of law in Uganda. There is a reign of terror and torture, rape and rapine, murder and massacre. There is suppression of all the freedoms of the majority of people in that country, while there is untrammelled licence for this sadistic beast and his followers, who vie with him in piling atrocity upon atrocity.
Thousands of people have disappeared. Thousands have been liquidated for personal, political and factional reasons entirely outside the processes of the law. Their bodies have been disposed of in a way which makes it impossible to trace them or, if they are found, they are so savagely mutilated that they cannot be identified. This brutal dictator, who seems to look around with obvious pleasure and some warped sense of achievement on the bloodsoaked scene that he has created, does not represent the wishes of the people of Uganda.
For the sake of the suffering people of Uganda, we must not allow him to come here and be seen to be accepted as being in any way representative of his people. It would be damaging to the people of Uganda if this were done. It would be a great offence to the people of this country if he were allowed to come, and I believe that it would also be damaging to the whole Commonwealth if he were seen to come here and, in spite of his record, to be assumed to be worthy of being entertained here as one of the distinguished heads of our Commonwealth of nations.

Mr. John Page:: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although I think that perhaps when I ask him the following question he will be sorry that he gave way. Will the hon. Gentleman give us his view, as an ex-Minister with experience in this field, on what would be the position of a representative of President Amin coming here instead of

the President himself? I have agreed with every word that he said about the President, but I want to be convinced that the Foreign Secretary is right about the position of a representative.

Mr. Whitlock: I can understand the difficulties that the Foreign Secretary faces. Obviously if someone other than the President attends the Conference on behalf of Uganda, the Conference will have an opportunity of dealing with a man who may perhaps be less offensive than President Amin. In this way the Conference might have some influence upon what is happening in Uganda. However, I fear that anyone who might come here in the place of President Amin would be the President's man and would therefore also be totally unacceptable to the British people. As I have said, I understand the Foreign Secretary's difficulties, but I hope that he will bear in mind the strength of feeling which has been voiced in the House today and which is shared by the whole British people.

12.41 p.m.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I intervene briefly because when I was a United Kingdom member of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights dealing with the persecution of minorities, in 1972, I raised the issue of the Ugandan Asians in an attempt to give international prominence to their plight. I am sure that nobody inside or outside the House has forgotten that this nation assumed a grave and courageous responsibility for those unfortunate people. The then Conservative Government came under heavy criticism but, to its great and enduring credit, maintained its position. None of us who were present will ever forget the speech that was made by Robert Carr, now Lord Carr, at the Conservative Party Conference. It was a courageous speech and it established a principle of faith that we can look back on with pride and pleasure.
I have also had the experience—unusual among hon. Members—of having met President Amin. All I can say of him is that I have never been in the presence of anyone who radiated such concentrated evil. That impression has, alas, been confirmed by his record since that time. He and his henchmen have


plundered, ruined and destroyed a once beautiful and fine nation. The rule of President Amin has been characterised by brutality and bloodshed. Uganda has now become a cat's-paw in the increasingly bitter international power struggle in Africa. None of this is new to the Foreign Secretary or to the House, but perhaps there are occasions when these points ought to be reiterated with emotion and strength.
It needs to be said—and I say it with regret—that the embarrased silence of the OAU leaders does them no credit. Alas, they have made successful attempts to prevent debate in the United Nations, thus denying the right of the United Nations to take note of evidence placed before it, and that is equally lamentable. As a former official of the United Nations and British representative on one of Its bodies, I believe in that organisation and in its potentialities. We are now in a situation in which cynicism and international hypocrisy has resulted in a position that is absolutely intolerable. Certain nations, particularly Israel and South Africa, are constantly being abused and having their internal affairs investigated and debated. However, as soon as another country is mentioned, whether in Eastern Europe, Africa or Asia, everyone remembers about Clause 2(7) relating to interference in the sovereign affairs of nations.
We know that the United Nations Charter contains a built-in dichotomy. It establishes principles of human rights and the quality of men and women and yet at the same time enshrines and strengthens the concept of sovereignty of individual nations. This dichotomy always will be with the United Nations, but it is of supreme importance that we in this House and this nation should emphasise that we believe that the concept of human rights and our understanding of fellow citizenship of this planet far transcends the rules and conventions relating to interference in internal affairs. I hope that that point will be emphasised in the discussions at the Commonwealth Conference, particularly during informal discussions, because this double talk is one of the factors that is discrediting not only the United Nations but the majority of the members of the Commonwealth.
My concern in this matter is for the future of the Commonwealth. How can the Commonwealth maintain what value it has if it carries the rule of non-intervention in internal affairs to these lengths? How can the Commonwealth hope to have any public support in this country if such a man as President Amin comes to London?
I fully understand the Government's predicament. To prohibit Amin would be to create a precedent that could unquestionably rebound on us or on other nations in the Commonwealth in future. I understand that point. I also understand the concern that exists for British nationals in Uganda and the concern that the Government must have—indeed, that we all have—for the people of Uganda themselves.
However, having considered those things—and I want to emphasise that I recognise their weight—it is also important for us to emphasise that there are limits, and that Amin and his régime have far transcended them. I regret that the Secretary of State was unable to give a more decisive statement this morning—just as I regret the fact that the Prime Minister yesterday asked hon. Members not to press him on this matter—because time is running out and a decision must be made shortly.
In the circumstances, having considered the matter and having been involved in the affairs of Uganda for the last five years, I have come to the view that I should urge the Government that President Amin should be personally prohibited from entering this country for the Conference and that we should also look carefully at whether he should be allowed to nominate a representative.

12.47 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: The sincere speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes lames) has emphasised once again what is best in the House. That is that there are areas of concern, particularly relating to human rights, that unite most of us most of the time. I was certainly impressed by the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks regarding Lord Carr and the fact that even today the main area of human rights, race relations and immigration is common ground between most hon.


Members in the House. Indeed, the policies to which the hon. Member for Cambridge referred—policies that were expounded by Lord Carr—are essentially the policies that the Government follow today, in spite of certain criticisms from certain members of the Opposition.
However, I find it almost incredible that I should be agreeing with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on anything. I was a little reassured when the hon. Member for Louth started off in his usual non-controversial and radical way concerning Rhodesia because I then knew that we should not agree on everything. Indeed, I should have felt extremely uncomfortable if I had agreed with everything that was said by the hon. Member for Louth in the same way as I agreed with all that was said by the hon. Member for Cambridge. However, divisions on the Opposition side are quite as real as the unity on my side.
There is in this country a most remarkable amount of agreement on the motion that is before the House today. I have received a huge mail. Even the writers of the hundreds of letters that attack me always start off by agreeing about Amin and then launch into an attack about something else. The only way in which some of the writers disagree with me is that they believe that we should bring Amin here and then keep him here as long as possible or murder him, or else keep him here long enough to ensure that he is ousted before he can return. I do not find favour with that proposition because I wonder who would replace him since he has slaughtered everyone in sight. Anybody whom Amin raises to office is wiped out before he gets too near the throne.
I do not believe that anyone in this country wants Amin to come here. I do not believe that he would have a happy welcome if he arrived here. A nod being as good as any number of winks, this debate is almost dead at the start regarding the admission to this country of Amin, because it seems clear that the Government will not permit him to come. I do not believe for a moment that his plane will be allowed to land or, if it does, that he will get any further than the tarmac.
However, that is not the end of the matter, because this unanimity is awaiting expression in other ways. This morning, five young people from an organisation

known as the B'nai B'rith Youth Organisation brought me over 7,000 signatures which they had collected in various parts of the country, because they felt that the feeling of the public should be known. The hon. Member for Louth has enabled that to be done.
This unanimous feeling, that this wicked dictator should not be permitted to come into this country, is a matter that the Government must hear from all sides. The question is whether substitutes will be satisfactory. I fear that the disagreement begins here. It was clear from the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the intention at this stage is to allow representatives of President Amin to come to this country. That was not said in terms, but my right hon. Friend said that we could not keep them out and that it was right that Uganda should be represented.
I take issue on that, because Amin is not just a man; he is representative of a régime. He is not an elected Prime Minister. Therefore, if we do not like him personally and cannot guarantee his safety, we cannot say "Very well, let his Foreign Secretary come in his place". He is the regime. He runs the country. He decides what will be done. He provides others as his mouthpieces. If they come here, they will not come as free men able to speak their minds. They will come, not as representatives of a free regime, but as pawns of a dictator.

Mr. Townsend: The logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks is that Uganda should be suspended from the Commonwealth. The British Government cannot pick and choose which Minister or Ministers should represent a country Does he agree with my conclusion?

Mr. Janner: I find that an important and difficult question to answer. We have no diplomatic relations with Uganda. We should say that we shall not admit Amin or his representatives. I believe that the first item on the agenda for the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference should be consideration of the membership of Uganda, just as that same body considered the membership of Rhodesia and of South Africa, which were also members of the Commonwealth. That is a Commonwealth decision.
Our decision is whether we admit people into this country. It is an open


secret that we had hoped that the Commonwealth countries would take that decision off our shoulders by saying "We do not want him." They have not done that. Even our friend the Canadian Prime Minister said "You must decide. We will back your decision."
Amin is symbolic. We cannot picture the 90,000 to 100,000 people whom the International Commission of Jurists said that he slaughtered. Mrs. Bloch, whose family I know very well, is symbolic in her own way. She was not just one dear, courageous, kindly old lady who was strangled and shot, and whose body was then burned. She was a British citizen. People can understand and see the death of one person as a reality. But the deaths of 100,000 people represent something which the human mind in this decent and splendid country of ours cannot possibly encompass. We might think "He killed all the people whom we saw in Wembley Stadium on the day of the Cup Final", but that old lady was a reality.
I do not believe that Amin should be allowed into this country. Equally, how are we to know that the murderer of that old lady will not be among those sent to represent General Amin? I do not know who murdered Mrs. Bloch. The Bloch family have alleged that it is a person whom they have named in a writ which is waiting to be served on that gentleman.
I come now to a point which has not so far been mentioned—the question of what diplomatic immunity is to be accorded to those who come as representatives of General Amin. They do not get diplomatic immunity automatically. They have diplomatic immunity accorded to them by their names being put on a list which the Foreign Secretary has to draw up in accordance with an Act which rejoices in the title Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences with Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act 1961. The Foreign Secretary draws up a list of representatives and they then acquire the same diplomatic immunity as the representatives of any non-Commonwealth country.
I ask my right hon. Friend, who I am pleased to see is back in the Chamber, to tell us whether he proposes to draw up such a list and, if so, whether he will

ensure that he does not provide diplomatic immunity for the man who, according to the family of the lady concerned, who are very well informed on the matter, personally murdered a British lady. How will he ensure that the representatives of Uganda whom he allows to come into this country do not include among them the person who murdered this British citizen? Will he provide diplomatic immunity for those representatives if and when they are allowed in?
I very much hope that Amin will not want to come. I hope that, if we offer to allow Ministers to come in his place, that offer will be rejected. But we must consider the possibility of Amin coming any way, of his security being at risk, and of his wanting to send Ministers.
We have had similar problems with other countries which sent people who were unacceptable and who were not welcomed with total joy and accord by the entire British people. But they were not in the main people of whom we could say "Yes" or "No" they could or could not come. They were sent as representatives by other nations or other parties within nations.
In this situation the head of the country concerned is almost certain to be excluded. I ask the Foreign Secretary, having grasped the nettle, which he should do very tightly, to say that it is not just the man who committed the murders and who has been indicted by the International Commission of Jurists, but the règime which is dominated by and dictated to by this man that we do not want in this country.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on raising this matter today, this being the last parliamentary day before a decision on this important matter can be made and announced by the Government in this House.
I am honoured that the Foreign Secretary should have returned to the Chamber to hear my speech in full. I think that must be the reason for his brisk return. However, he missed three extremely distinguished and unusually strongly based speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and Cambridge (Mr.


Rhodes James) and his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock). The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt hear reports of and read those speeches. However, it is a pity that he did not get the feel of them. They were distinguished and important speeches and I should have been prepared to give up my own if that would have given him the opportunity of hearing those speeches.
That leads me to the disappointment which many of us feel today about what has happened. This being the last parliamentary day before 8th June when the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference begins, the Foreign Secretary has missed the opportunity of announcing to the House the Government's decision on this important matter. The Government were unwise to miss that opportunity.
There may have to be further consultations—and I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is considering that carefully—but had he taken the opportunity of making this announcement in the House it would have made a great difference to the attitude of the people of this country towards the decision, whatever it is and whenever it is made.
I speak today because I feel that it is important for the Foreign Secretary and the Government to know the strength and the wide base of the feelings in the country and in my constituency about President Amin's visit. I have letters about it. Whenever I am in my constituency this matter comes up in discussions. Earlier this week I received a small petition urging me, if I spoke in the debate today, to say that President Amin must not come.
I have not had the opportunity of examining the speech by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, but I feel that this country is more in the position of host than hotelier. As the host country we have a right to decide who should and who should not come in. I accept that although we are the host we do not necessarily issue the invitations.
I take issue with a number of people who are reported in the Press and on the radio who want President Amin to come to this country so that our people can demonstrate their disgust and their disfavour of him. I do not enjoy the demonstrations which take place against visitors to this country. I feel that if we are the

host we should treat our guests with dignity. I object to the idea that President Amin should be invited so that he can be shown how much we dislike him.
I now turn to the more difficult proposition of allowing in a representative. I am convinced, as is the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), that President Amin will not be allowed to come to this country. Often when one is listening to a debate in the House one's preconceived notions are sometimes overturned, often by the speeches which try to persuade one the other way. Before I heard the Foreign Secretary's speech I was prepared to accept the idea that a kind of stooge representative would do no harm I am no longer convinced of that.
It would not be a satisfactory way out of our dilemma to allow in a nominee or Minister of President Amin's to come to represent him and his régime at the. Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting, if he is to be accorded the same status and diplomatic immunity as a Head of Government. We are killing ourselves not with 1,000 lashes but with 500. I say that we should not give our bodies for flagellation in that way at all. I would accept no more than a person invited as an observer, who takes no part in any activities other than the sessions.
I am worried about the trivia of the flag. If we have ordered the flag, as the Prime Minister said yesterday in a rather oracular manner, it looks as if we might feel that we must put it up. This flag should not be flown. It should be left in the flagmaker's store for flying on another occasion when the régime is changed, as we all hope it will be.
Finally, if a representaitve from Uganda is admitted to the Commonwealth deliberations it will do harm to the concept of the Commonwealth. I was persuaded by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath, who put the matter in an exact perspective and argued the case better than I could. The first item on the agenda should be a discussion of the position of Uganda in the Commonwealth.
As the leading article in the Observer of 22nd May said,
If it failed to get a consensus vote (the basis of all Commonwealth decisions) another question would have to be faced: is a Commonwealth which could find room for a régime like Amin's worth preserving?


That is the position with which we are faced.
It is ridiculous that there is within the Commonwealth a country with which we cannot have diplomatic relations. I beg the Foreign Secretary to accept the strong, instinctive feelings of the people of this country. They are more often right than the decisions of Governments and Members of Parliament. It would be totally undesirable to have Amin or a member of his régime attending this conference.

1.7 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of the debate. I particularly regret missing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton). My views on the matter are fairly clear and I suspect that they coincide with those of my hon. Friend.
I am strongly opposed to President Amin's being invited or admitted to this country for the Jubilee celebrations. He should be so refused or not admitted because of his treatment of British subjects in Uganda. Maltreatment and humiliation of British people is surely conduct that should dissuade us from inviting the perpetrator of that conduct to join in the celebrations for the Queen's Silver Jubilee.
I do not believe that the way in which he treats his own people is a matter that we should take into account in this context. It is there that error sometimes creeps into the discussion. Bad as President Amin is, he is almost like a Sunday school teacher compared with the leaders of some of the régimes that exist today. Some of those leaders have been to this country. I am talking of Russia and even more of some South-East Asian regimes, where undreamed of murders take place and where the ground is almost drenched in blood.

Mr. Greville Janner: What about Chile?

Mr. Bell: The hon. and learned Member must be joking. The only thing that is wrong with Chile is that it has a Right-wing Government and the hon. and learned Member is a Left-wing politician. That is not a good reason for condemning that State. I expect that law and order in Chile is admirable.

Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I agree about Amin, but is he aware that there are some of us who detest breaches of human rights and attacks on human dignity from wherever they come?

Mr. Bell: I dare say they do, but this debate is about President Amin and Uganda, and it is not particularly helpful to bring in references to controversial regimes, such as Chile, about which I take one view and the hon. and learned Gentleman takes another, and these differences of view would be reflected among reasonable people throughout the community.
The fact is that all kinds of outrages against the standards of conduct that we accept here are committed and have been committed all around the world in a great many countries, and we do not on that account refuse to meet the leaders or representatives of those countries. I think in general that that is right. That is a relevant consideration here, because one has to consider whether one is going to admit President Amin himself—the person—or whether one is going to admit a representative of his country. In my view, the objection that I have is to him, and the way that he has ill-treated and humiliated British people, so that we ought not to have such a person here, whereas—

Mr. Keith Stainton: Would my hon. and learned Friend care to particularise in talking of British people? Would he care to make particular mention of the murdered archbishop, an archbishop of the Church of Her Majesty the Queen?

Mr. Bell: I was deeply shocked by that. However, the difficulty that I feel about that—my hon. Friend will realise the shape of what I am saying—is that I think the archbishop was not in fact a British person by extraction, a part of—in Winston Churchill's phrase—the British race dwelling around the world, which is the proper concern of this Parliament.

Mr. Greville Janner: Not a patrial.

Mr. Bell: He was not a patrial, as the hon. and learned Gentleman puts it, and not our concern, because we are here to look after the British. When President Amin treats British people in the way


in which he has treated them, we have to say "You jolly well do not come to our country on a celebratory occasion". However, as for his country, as such, and its Government, which is a legally constituted Government, we have to recognise the fact that there are all kinds of standards prevailing in the world.
I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who knows a great deal about these things from his own personal experience in the past. I would differ from him only on one point. That is in the relative emphasis that he gave to what he and many others call human rights, on the one hand, and national sovereignty, on the other hand. The declaration about human rights is preambular to the Charter of the United Nations. Article 2.7 is part of the substantive document—part of the treaty—and it plainly prevails over the general sentiments in the preamble. It is actually a part of the constitution of the United Nations. Therefore, it is more important juridically, and it should be more important in controlling the actions of States that are members of the United Nations than the high principles set out in the preamble.
On some suitable occasion I should like to say what I think about the preamble. I read with great interest a leading article in The Times on human rights a couple of weeks ago, because I have always taken the view that no such thing exists or possibly could exist. One cannot have rights against animals or insects, or against the Milky Way. There is no such thing as human rights. I was a little inclined to think that this was my own possibly pedantic view of the language, but when a leading article in The Times takes the same point I realise that I am quite respectable
The human race has always been attracted to these wide-ranging declarations, as though in their own generation the ultimate light had been seen and all the succeeding generations of the human race, through millions of years, were to do nothing else but apply the general principle which they in their particular and municipal wisdom had laid down. So I am not a great believer in declarations, whether universal or not, on human rights.
However, the point is that the United Nations Charter lays down with total clarity in its operative part that the United Nations has no concern and is not to take action about matters of domestic jurisdiction—not of domestic interest, which is the equivocating escape so often used but of domestic jurisdiction. That means that we are not entitled to look inside a country and see what goes on in its domestic jurisdiction in so far as we are members of the United Nations.
Of course, we have other existences. We are people and we have our view and we can express our view—but not as members of the United Nations. That reinforces the point that I made that Uganda the country, as distinct from Amin the man, is something on which we should not turn our backs.
For one thing, of course—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) will agree with me about this—there is in Uganda, among the people, a very great fund of friendship for Britain. I am referring not to Amin and his colleagues but to the people of Uganda, who have had a long connection with us and a very friendly and happy connection, until this wretched business arose.
Just as in the case of India, although I did not agree with the Attlee policy, nevertheless I have always felt a tremendous affection for India. I think that anyone who has had any personal dealing with Commonwealth countries usually has that feeling. Whatever our faults, we left a great legacy of friendship in all these territories. I think that that, too, should be given its weight.
I do not know what are the juridical difficulties here. The Foreign Secretary has obviously looked into those. I think that they are not insubstantial. Frankly, I do not know how they will be got over. But I take the view that we should feel so strongly about this matter that somehow we must find a way around the juridical difficulties.
Of course, if Amin had any sense—which, almost by definition, he has not—he would get us out of the difficulty by saying that in view of the misunderstanding, and so on, he would send a representative—instead of which he behaves like an impudent scallywag and


suggests putting up 200 dancing girls at Buckingham Palace.
This makes it all the more impossible for us to allow him in and all the more important for the Foreign Secretary—who has, after all, no other difficulties at present—to find a way of coping with this situation in a way that will express the feelings of the British people both to Amin as a person and to the people in the territory of Uganda with whom we have a long and happy association.

1.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I believe that the country will welcome the tone of the debate, and I hope that the people of Uganda will notice the moderation in the motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) mentioned in his opening remarks. However, I think that we must remember that in a few weeks' time the Prime Ministers' Conference will be over and that what is happening in Uganda will continue.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has put the legal points about what we may or not do in the internal affairs of another country. I think that what one must also accept is that if nowadays this country is not going to carry out the sort of responsibilities that it has had in the Colonies, and other areas that were not Colonies, over the last 150 years—of going in and sorting out what we regarded as inadequate or repressive regimes, and often imposing régimes of our own—one must ask to where we can turn as an alternative.
I think that it has been accepted in international convention that sanctions are the way. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) suggested that one of the countries that require sanctions is Uganda, because although that is not interfering in the internal politics of the country, it is an external act which would have the effect of forcing an internal change. That is a point that needs to be emphasised, and one that I hope the Government will try to put in hand, through the Commonwealth and, with the Commonwealth bloc, through the United Nations, in the weeks and months that follow the Prime Ministers' Conference. Although the

debate that we are having on the motion is relevant to that, it is not the basic problem of the people of this country or of Uganda. I shall not go on at length about that but leave that topic and spend a moment on another.
If this House is to express its will on the motion, it must be willing to go further when it comes face to face with problems caused by régimes such as that in Uganda. Here I should like to follow up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) on the praiseworthy way in which in 1972 the Government reacted to the Ugandan Asian refugee problem. It is no good Right-wingers, Left-wingers or middle-wingers all uniting on the question whether a tyrannical President should be able to come to this country to join in celebratory occasions and the Commonwealth Conference. One has also to be willing perhaps to sacrifice some party principles, and some of the prejudices of this country, to make way for people who are suffering from tyrannical régimes.
It is no good anyone in this House deluding himself and thinking that the last wave of refugees from that tyrannical régime came and were accommodated five years ago. Some of us had something to do with the resettlement of the Ugandan Asians. For a time I had a family in my house and I felt horror at the stories they told of what happened to them. Worse things have been happening to the Africans left behind in Uganda. Although there may be a responsibility on this House, and on the Government, for Britons and for patrials, there is an equal responsibility as human citizens for people, be they Africans, patrial, Anglo-Irish, or whatever other amalgam of Anglo-Saxon or Norman we have in this country.
As members of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations we have a responsibility to assist the world in trying to work towards some way of making sure that tyrannical regimes fail to get international support and that those who come from those regimes in the end find freedom, whether they come to this country or to other countries around the world.

1.22 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbaim: I apologise for not


being present throughout the debate. In particular, I did not hear the Foreign Secretary's speech—although I have had a precis of what he said—but I hope he will forgive me for speaking in the debate despite that.
It is important to ask ourselves what the Commonwealth is for. Is it just a trading association? Is it just a sort of ex-soldiers' club which used to have an association now past but which likes to keep up comradeship by meeting once a year, or is it genuinely concerned with any principles of any kind? Clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) said in his discreet and careful proposal of his motion, there are in the Commonwealth a large number—indeed a majority—of the countries to whom we gave the parliamentary democracy of Westminster rule, together with the goods and chattels which are symbolic with it, which have become one-party States and in which there is no parliamentary democracy as we know it. There is no opportunity as we know it for electing those who rule those countries.
I find it extraordinary that with regard to the last remaining leper of the Commonwealth—Rhodesia—we should be trying to give it the very thing which we know that those who are indigenous and black members of that country will inevitably reject as soon as they get the opportunity. But I suppose the British people have to go through the ritual of guilt by which they can eventually indulge in a duplicity which is probably the greatest reason why we doubt almost everything we now do.
We have to ask ourselves why President Amin wants to come here. It surely cannot be because he has not had a holiday this year. It cannot be that he feels some unsatisfied love of our Sovereign. It cannot be that there is no other way in which he can meet his old friends. Why does he want to come? That seems to be the nub of the question. He wants to come in order to demonstrate to the world, and to us in particular, that he can behave contrary to all the tenets that we hold dear, and which the Commonwealth stands for, and get away with it. That, I believe, is his motive, and none other.
We should consider whether it would be more appropriate that when he gets here he is the object of derision and taunt,

or whether it would be better to forbid him and enlarge his mindless rage against principles which are dear to Members on all sides of the House. I would have thought that the Foreign Secretary may have juridical difficulties, but there has never been any difficulty in preventing an alien from coming to this country. There are no difficulties in finding juridical reasons for preventing an alien from coming to this country. I hope the Government will not hide behind alleged juridical reasons, because there is no right of an alien, even if he is a member of the British Commonwealth—since it has no membership and no constitution I cannot see that that makes much difference—to come to this country.
But there is another matter which should not be misunderstood in this context. That is the sense of genuine basic revulsion and annoyance which the decent people of this country will feel if we do not stand up for our principles. I took great note of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said about the fact that one can have an absolute principle that one does not interfere in the internal affairs of another country whether it commits genocide or not. But I think that where a representative, even if he be an alien, of the Church of whom the Sovereign is the head, namely, the Church of England, is publicly massacred with a cynicism, lie and deceit which cannot often have been equalled in tyranny, it is wrong that such a person should come here immune from any of the proper results of such a piece of horror.
That is a principle that we must understand because the Queen is not only head of the Church of England but also head of the Commonwealth. How is the Sovereign and the constitution to bear a situation in which the Queen must tolerate, with her headship of the Commonwealth, the fact that one of her presidents is entitled to slay the representative of the Church of England of which she is also head? I believe that that poses a much more important constitutional and juridical problem than the mere question whether Her Majesty's Customs and Excise can say "We are sorry" and put someone back on the next aeroplane.
Of course the Foreign Secretary has a grave and weighty responsibility, which


no one should under-estimate, not only to the unfortunate British citizens upon whom pique may wreak a terrifying revenge but also to the people of Uganda upon whom pique may equally in a moment of rage, anger, or childishness, wreak a revenge. It would be dangerous, even weak, if we were to say that we were powerless within the Commonwealth—over which we so proudly reign, or of which inter pares we are part—or that we are incapable of enforcing any of the principles which we believe are sacrosanct for the behaviour of Governments and for the conduct of human beings.
It would be symbolic if President Amin, or anyone representing him, were to be allowed to come here in order to demonstrate that one can not only get away with genocide on a scale estimated at 100,000 by the International Commission of Jurists but be praised and lauded for having done so. It is the symbolism of what it would represent that would do the greatest damage.
I should like to think that the first thing the Commonwealth Conference will put on the agenda is discussion of a declaration of human rights to which Commonwealth members could or would subscribe. If we read the articles of the Declaration of Human Rights, we see that very few of them are underwritten in practice by these members of the Commonwealth. I should like to think that, whether President Amin comes here and is derided or whether he is kept away in disreputation, the Conference will consider doing something about a nation that is in bondage and servitude under a tyrant.

1.32 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce: We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) for moving this motion. It will undoubtedly be the last opportunity that this Parliament will have before the Commonwealth Conference begins in two weeks' time to discuss this delicate and difficult issue. It has enabled hon. Members on both sides of the House to express our views as strongly as we can—and our views, with different degrees of emphasis, seem to be more or less unanimous.
On a day such as this, when we are dealing with a Private Member's motion.

we are all very glad to see present throughout the whole of the debate the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary.
I should like to make clear that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in the House on 19th May
it would be utterly repugnant if President Amin were to attend the conference."—[Official Report, 19th May 1977; Vol. 932, c. 687.]
It seems from the evidence that there is little disagreement with that view in the House. What is noticeable in many speeches today is concern as to whether it would be acceptable to the British people and Parliament that President Amin should be allowed to send representatives. I sympathise with the Secretary of State in this difficult decision, but it would be unacceptable for any leading member of his Administration to come here as a representative. If we ban the President, that surely means that we are banning his régime. I stress that it would be unacceptable for any leading member of his Administration to come here.
One or two hon. Members have drawn a parallel between the present situation and past occasions. For example, if we had decided to ban Hitler from this country for one reason or another, would he have been any less or more acceptable than Himmler or Goebbels would have been? What would have happened if we had decided not to allow Stalin to come to this country? Would it have been any more or less acceptable to have had Beria coming here? This is an important point that needs to be taken into account by the Secretary of State.
I believe that there is a difference between previous Commonwealth Conferences and this year's Conference. Previously President Amin decided not to attend but to send a representative. On this occasion we are advocating that he should be banned from coming, and are therefore saying that his régime is unacceptable. It is surely the case that not only Amin but his régime and all those who support him in his Administration are beyond the pale of civilisation. We are talking about a tyrant who has committed appalling atrocities. Words cannot describe what we all feel about his actions since he came to power. I believe that the whole régime and all its


leading members share in the guilt of what has happened in Uganda.
We have reached the conclusion that President Amin's presence would be unacceptable and offensive to the British people. The Foreign Secretary told the House that the Commonwealth Secretary, Mr. Ramphal, has indicated that he has considerable sympathy with the British Government in their decision in terms of physical safety and public security. What is more, one of the great African leaders, President Kaunda, was reported earlier this week to have said that had he been host to the Commonwealth Conference—and had this not been Jubilee year the conference would have been held in Zambia—he would have found it unacceptable to have allowed President Amin into his country. We should also carefully consider that point.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) referred to our great historic ties with the people of Uganda. Because we have great concern for its people, we feel more passionately about this problem. I served in the overseas Civil Service in East Africa, and as a young boy I used to cross the border from Southern Sudan into Uganda to see some of our friends there. I and many other people who served in that part of the world have acquired a great affection for the people who live in Uganda and in East Africa generally. Our special ties with that part of the world lead us to even more concern and passion about the present situation and in deciding whether we should allow President Amin into this country.
The background of the situation has been highlighted by many hon. Members. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) referred to the International Commission of Jurists. We are all aware of the successive reports on this subject, of which the most recent is only one of many, indicating the degree of atrocities in Uganda. The figures show that in the first two years of Amin's régime at least 80,000 people were murdered, and that figure is now estimated to be over 100,000. Indeed, Amnesty International, in a less deep assessment, reckoned that figure to be between 50,000 and 300,000 in the last six years.
The report from the International Commission of Jurists points to the growing

abuses of human rights in Uganda. It points to the expulsion of Asians in 1972 and to growing abuses in other fields. The most recent report refers to the reign of terror and to the policy of Amin in seeking to eliminate all those who might be a threat to him, particularly the more educated people. It refers to the atrocities at Acholi and Lango and to many other tribes. It also pointed to the accumulated evidence of atrocities, for example, at the village of Lira, the corpses in the Mabira and Namumre Forests in 1974, and the killings at Makcrere University in 1976. It tells of the murder of Chief Justice Kiwannka, the assassination of two former Cabinet Ministers, and the brutal murder of Archbishop Luwum. There is the endless persecution of Christians in a country where it is estimated that about one-third of the people are Roman Catholic and one-third Anglican.
There is the terrible use by Amin of his State Research Unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) referred to the support which, the evidence suggests, Amin is getting from outside Powers such as Libya and the Soviet Union. It is noticeable, and should be noted by the British people, that the Soviet Union is more and more moving in to support some of the most odious regimes. It is not just Uganda. There is the recent evidence of such activity in Ethiopia. It is noticeable that the Soviet Union is moving in to support regimes that reasonable and friendly African leaders themselves must regard with the greatest of concern.
There was a most moving cry of pain, if I may put it that way, in the report of the International Commission of Jurists, in a letter that it published from Wannme Kibedi, who was Uganda's Foreign Secretary in Amin's early days but who resigned. He wrote to Amin:
When future generations look at your period of one-man rule in Uganda they will realise that never in the history of our beautiful country did one man ever cause so much misery and bitterness to so many people in such a short period of time. Your excesses are exceptional and unique to you and in no way representative of independent Africa.
I think that that is a fair point, and one that we in this country understand, for in the African context Amin has done a gross disservice to the African people.
Moreover, Amin has made a settlement in Rhodesia that much more difficult, because he has instilled into the Europeans there an even greater fear of what could happen if an agreement were reached about majority rule—a fear that some people may say is irrational but which has, understandably, been whipped up by what is happening in Uganda. President Amin has done a great disservice to the Africans in Rhodesia by his massacres in Uganda. No African has the right to condemn what is happening in South Africa, or condemn, as was rightly condemned, the Sharpeville massacre in the 1960s, if at the same time he fails to condemn the atrocities in Uganda.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) said, there had been until recently a sad and ominous silence from the leaders of the other African States, until the brave and statesmanlike statement by President Kaunda this week. The Organisation of African Unity has said nothing; at the Cairo conference of Arab nations, nothing was said.
Within the Commonwealth context, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire said, if the Commonwealth means anything this is surely the kind of issue upon which we must make a stand. Indeed, if it does not mean anything, what is the point of its continuing? But I believe that it does mean something. I believe that we have between us great historic ties and that we can still be, despite what many people think, a unique force for peace in a troubled world.
When we worked together in the Empire, we stood for freedom under the law, freedom from fear, freedom from terror, and, above all, in the context of these atrocities, freedom to live. So I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman that when the Commonwealth Heads of Government meet, whatever the final formula arrived at, the British will ask that the situation in Uganda be fully discussed and consideration be given to what further action can be taken. Indeed, I go along with the view of many of my Friends that there is a strong case for setting up some kind of machinery in the Commonwealth to deal with the human rights situation as it exists.

Dr. Owen: I am grateful for the tone of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The agenda of the Conference is agreed by consensus, just as the form and pattern of the meeting, whether in open session, plenary session or closed session, is a matter for consensus. I assure the House that we shall lose no opportunity open to us, through diplomatic means, the United Nations, the Commonwealth or by direct representations, to change the current policies of the Ugandan Government and to make it abundantly clear to them, on issues of human rights and many other aspects, that it is fundamentally important that there should be a complete and radical change of policy.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That is a great reassurance to us. There is no place for tyranny in the membership of the Commonwealth.
My final point is on the general question of human rights, to which many hon. Members have made reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge—with his experience of the United Nations—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath made strong references to the whole question of machinery for human rights. I agree that the present machinery of the United Nations shows futility in its being unable to do anything whatever to get impartial and objective assessments and follow-up action. We are entitled to say that whether the situation be in Chile, in Ethiopia, in South Africa, in Cambodia, in Uganda, in Indonesia or in the Eastern bloc, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights should look at these issues from an impartial and objective point of view. There should be no double standards, but I am afraid that the evidence of the last few years suggests that we have had the most terrible degree of double standards in looking at these issues.
The International Commission of Jurists has referred the Uganda situation to the United Nations Commission no fewer than three successive times in three years, and each time that Commission has decided not to make a thorough review and not to take follow-up action. It has simply said that it will keep the matter under review. All that it has done in the past—and I do not blame it in these individual cases—is to set up working parties to look at the situations in


Chile, South Africa and Israel. That is fine, but there are many other parts of the world which the Commission should be examining.
The right hon. Gentleman should make the strongest possible representations to the United Nations Commission that it should use teeth and look into the question of the atrocities in Uganda and try to do something about the situation. If it does not do that, the whole thing can only be regarded as a complete farce. I urge the Government to take all the action they can to support President Carter's move to make that Commission not only impartial and objective but to give it teeth.
The Commonwealth must be left in no doubt today, after this debate, about the views of the British people and of the British Parliament. We are friends of the people of Uganda, and we want them to know that it is unacceptable that their oppressor should be allowed into London and that we all long for the day when ordinary standards of civilised behaviour can once again reign in Uganda.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House would not welcome the presence of the President of Uganda at the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference.

BRITISH RAIL

1.50 p.m.

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward proposals for a railway policy which meets the needs of passengers, customers and taxpayers while ensuring a future for the industry.
I am grateful that today I have a larger hearing than I did when you were last in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) and to those hon. Members who took part in the previous debate and spoke briefly to allow time for this important debate.
I realise that this is a difficult time for the Secretary of State because his White Paper which has been so long awaited has not yet been published, but as I look at him I feel that it must be imminent.
We have, however, two important documents before us to discuss. We have the British Rail report, and on that report I warmly congratulate the Chairman, Mr. Peter Parker, on the improvement that it shows and, to use his words, I
congratulate also the railway community as a whole.
Secondly, we have before us the important report from the Select Committee. An enormous amount of work has gone into this report, and I believe that this House, the industry and the country have cause to be grateful to the members of that Committee for this invaluable document. One need not agree with it in total. Few could agree with every suggestion that it makes, but, none the less, it is a work that will long be remembered.
My motion concerns passengers. It concerns customers. It concerns taxpayers and whether they are getting value for money. Finally, and this is very important indeed, it deals with the industry itself.
I do not believe that passengers are getting the deal that the Chairman would wish for them. I do not believe that enough consideration and planning is taking place. Is there enough planning for the future of British Rail to allow for the change of population, for moves to perhaps smaller towns and to the new


towns that are growing up? Does a sufficient number of inter-city trains stop at stations such as Watford and Stevenage to help those commuters who live near London and wish to travel north? Are there enough cross-country routes? This is referred to in paragraph 78 of the Select Committee's Report.
Hanging over us the whole time is the closure of lines, and nobody knows that better than I do in the High Peak at Buxton, which is the highest town in the British Isles. We need a railway, on social grounds. At 1,000 ft., the railway is our lifeline when the roads are closed. That town also has the attribute that it is the gateway to one of our most beautiful national parks, which last year was visited by 13 million people. Were there to be no railway, that would present an enormous road problem for the national park.
Much has been said about closing down railways and using buses. I am grateful to the High Peak Railway Passengers Association and its chairman, Mr. Edmund Bradbury, for reminding me that only two-thirds of the bus services introduced after the 1969–75 railway closures were still operative in 1976. Is that consideration for passengers?
The annual report of British Rail makes it clear that there is to be an increase in fares and suggests something along the lines of the rate of inflation. I believe that for one section of the community alone that would be impossible. I refer to commuters. In his speech on 20th January my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) made it clear that people's take-home pay does not keep pace with the rate of inflation. Therefore, if it is desirable—which I think it is—to keep life in our cities, we must not drive people into stopping coming into the cities because of the high fares and instead seeking jobs close to home, often in unsuitable areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was recently in the United States of America, and I know that he made an extensive survey of commuter services there. In no place could he find a commuter service that paid. It is a desirable social method to bring people into our cities by train, and such a service cannot be expected to bear the full cost. We must pay for it, and

when I look at Recommendation 420 by the Select Committee I submit that the Greater Manchester area should have some of that money because up there, as I have experience to know, things are very difficult.
There is evidence that, unlike short bus routes, there is a growing demand for rail services. Dr. Pryke and Mr. Dodgson estimate that there will be a 15 per cent. increase in rail use between now and 1981. The Government must recognise that, and in doing so take note of the changes of population to which I have referred.
The Secretary of State must be wary of cutting British Rail for seemingly short-term gains. There was a debate in the other place earlier this week which brought out the need for energy conservation, which will make the railways all that much more important in the future. Let the Secretary of State also take note that the American Government are spending millions of dollars putting back some sort of passenger and freight system. I would, in all humility, suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's job is a piece of cake compared with what the Americans have to put up with at the moment.
Passengers are crying out for a single transport policy. That comes out all the way through the Select Committee's Report. It suggests that we should coordinate into a single coherent unit our transport systems and have a timetable for bus, rail and air services. When the bus has to be used rather than rail, it should be on the rail timetable, and proper connections should be provided.
I make a special plea for those who travel inter-city on Sundays. I know the importance of track maintenance, but I wonder whether, in the middle of the day on a Sunday, it would not be better to stop inter-city trains. Last Sunday afternoon—and I emphasise that this is in no way political because in the same carriage as myself there was the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—more than 3½ hours were spent on a bus and train journey from Macclesfield to London. That journey will, I am confident, as it always is in mid-week, be carried out in 2 hours 9 minutes later this afternoon.
I hope that it will be possible for British Rail to provide slightly better catering facilities on Sunday. In a hot


summer it is difficult to believe that ice machines need maintenance, yet if beer or soft drinks are not sold out they are always lukewarm when served. It is a case of never ice on Sunday.
I propose now to deal with passenger participation. I believe that there is a great lack of consultation between passengers and British Rail. I take one example in my constituency of the complete failure of the Transport Users Consultative Committee to intervene. I refer to the service from Chinley to London. It was not withdrawn; it was just discontinued without consultation.
There is also a lack of timetable planning by feeder lines. My constituents arrive in Stockport from London and have the pleasure of seeing the little "chugger" that goes from Manchester to Buxton passing them as they draw into the station. That means a long and entirely unnecessary delay. Like most other feeder users in the country, my constituents want to know whether the cost attributed to their line is genuine. Why should that line not have credit for some of the main line money?
Passengers should have the right to challenge fare increases. When British Rail wishes to increase its fares, it should come into the open and tell us the reasons. It should open the accounts, line by line, division by division, so that the passengers know what they are paying for and can see whether the increase is justified. This point refers equally to freight customers, to whom I now turn.
The Chairman of British Rail in his statement said:
We are concerned to seek every opportunity to strengthen and to improve our relationships with the customer.
Never has that been more necessary than it is now for British Rail. No customers are more important than those who use British Rail to transport freight. As on the passenger side, I believe that British Rail should show how it shares its freight costs. In the past two years the total loss on freight was over £100 million. Is that the whole story? How are we to know? We do not have the breakdown.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said in a speech on 20th January:
' the cost of the railway passenger service rose from £200 million in 1964 to just over £600

million in 1974. In other words—in spite of economies—the cost of the passenger business rose by over three times.
But now let us compare the cost of the rail freight business. The costs of that increased from £340 million in 1964 to £380 million in 1974. So on the freight side there was an increase of only 12 per cent.—with only a small fall in traffic.
The consultation document asks us to accept that in the period 1964 to 1974 the average cost of railway passenger travel rose from 0·60p per kilometre to 2·0p per kilometre. In the same period the average cost per tonne of rail freight only rose from 0·90p per tonne to l·10p per tonne. In the same period, incidentally, the cost of road freight is shown as having increased by three times."—[Official Report, 20th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 660.]
So, do we know the whole story about the cost of freight? I suggest that we do not. The Government must carry out their stated policy of phasing out the general subsidy. Freight does not need to lose.
While I recognise the importance of heavy freight such as steel and coal, I feel that not enough is being done to encourage the lighter freight and parcels business, which could be profitable. It is obvious that re-pricing freight could bring additional earnings. We cannot consider whether taxpayers are getting value for money until all of the circumstances are known about how money is being spent on the railways. That can come about only when we have a proper breakdown of accounts. I suggest that a breakdown must be owed, not only to the public, but to everyone in the railway community.
I do not intend to go into the manpower reduction figure, which seems to be about 40,000 for that industry. It appears that that will mainly come about through natural wastage. I am not convinced that the breakdown will be realisable in the way expected. I am sure that a reduction is necessary. To get a reduction in certain sectors—I am thinking of the drivers more than others—it would be necessary to make considerable investment in such things as signalling.
I was interested last week to meet the General Secretary and President of ASLEF, which was holding its conference at Buxton. I wonder why there is not one union for the whole of the railway movement. It is one industry, one community. There are, however, three unions. Mr. Ronksley made it clear to me how necessary it was in certain circumstances to have a second man on the train. He was


talking as a driver, pulling many oil wagons, who went into unmanned sidings. He spoke quite a lot of the safety element. Mr. Ray Buckton, the General Secretary, pointed out how important investment in track was and spoke of the continuous welded line, of which we now have laid 8,000 miles. Already we are 370 miles behind target on that programme. It costs £100,000 a mile and it is reckoned to do 520 miles per year.)If the investment is not kept up on that it will mean that within a few years all the available money will have to be used on that project and there will be nothing left for the remaining 3,000 miles of the railway system which will be unable to carry traffic at the speeds expected. That brings me to the wider question of signalling and ancillary services.
What is vital is that the industry should know that on all sides of the House we have confidence in it. We must say that we recognise the enormous importance of the railways to the future of Britain. The future of British Rail depends upon higher productivity. In the words of Mr. Parker:
Higher productivity, then, must be the key. Higher productivity is the rock on which our future must be built.
I wish to see an end to the rail versus road argument. Both are necessary. Right, suppose that large lorries must pay more tax; we must not set out to clobber the road contractors. The long-distance bus has its rôle. Let us have one fair transport policy. Having found that policy, let there be fair competition and, with great respect to every hon. Member, let there be minimum interference from us.

2.9 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I congratulate the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) on the manner in which he has moved his motion and the work which he has clearly put in. I also congratulate him on his private enterprise in choosing to discuss transport at this time. During the course of his speech I was flipping through the consultative document published in April last year. I noticed that the last sentence from the then Secretary of State of the Environment, the late Anthony Crosland, said:
We shall welcome forthright views on the issues which it raises.

Those forthright views have not been given in Parliament except in one brief debate, and it is therefore all the more commendable that the hon. Gentleman should have allowed us at least a short debate on the future of British Rail. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, and although I shall draw examples from Wales, they meet many of the points put so eloquently by the hon. Gentleman.
I shall try to look at some of the long-term trends because the debate provides an opportunity to project future trends and to try to forecast the transport problems that are likely to arise in the next few decades. I shall also try to consider whether the policies that are being adopted and are likely to be adopted in the White Paper can be properly adapted to meet new demands.
I am struck by the contrast between the objective case for rail expansion and the bullish attitude towards the railway industry as a whole and the negative, restrictionist attitude that one finds so often when looking at the railway industry, even from the British Railways Board itself.
Among the major problems looming on the horizon is that of support for greater rail usage. The hon. Member for High Peak referred to the energy crisis, and this subject was debated in another place this week. Projections indicate that by the mid-1980s the western world will be approaching an oil crisis. President Carter has shown his leadership qualities by his psychological challenge to the Americans to face up to the problems posed by the shortage of oil. Oil conservation must play a greater rôle in our policies and, both on passenger and freight, rail is less energy intensive than its competitors, except buses.
The Government should follow President Carter's lead and tell this country that, even with our North Sea resources, we have to face up gradually to adapting ourselves so that we do not have to make policy changes too abruptly in the early 1990s. This adaption will have to be made by pricing policies on petrol, traffic management schemes and a whole range of transport policies to reorient people gradually in favour of greater rail usage.
The second important factor is the environment. Quality of life arguments are


likely to play a greater rôle in the policies being pursued by the Government. Until my election to Parliament, I was a councillor in the Golborne ward of North Kensington, which had the West-way visited upon it in the mid-1960s. That road was put there without any concern for its impact on the community. People were brought in and we are still trying to pick up the pieces of that obscene intrusion into our inner city life in an area that was already multi-deprived. It is difficult to quantify the environmental impact of such roads, but we know the effect that they have on the quality of life in cities and villages that suffer from juggernauts.
Railways do not present the same problem. They are there already, and housing policies can take their existence into account. In addition, there are increasing land use arguments in favour of rail. A recent report by a group at Reading University on future land use in Britain forecasts an increasing demand on scarce agricultural resources being made by roads. The demand and protests made by people against the environmental intrusion of road projects are certainly far greater than the protests at rail subsidies and the cost of rail and public transport.
We must also consider the safety factor. I need not underline the heavy daily toll on people's limbs and lives on our roads, and I was surprised that the consultative document did not include safety as a relevant criterion in its list of objectives in a national transport policy. It is significant that no passengers' lives were lost on British Rail in 1976. Compare that with the enormous toll on life and limb on the roads, and one need say no more. I am disappointed that the Government appear to be pussyfooting around the road safety problem.
The Government have made concessions on speed limits and appear unwilling to push the Bill on the compulsory wearing of seat belts, despite the effect on human life that can be quantified as a result of that unwillingness. There has also been a deafening silence from the Government in response to the Blennerhasset Report on drinking and driving. When are we going to learn what the Government intend to do about this vital report that is gathering dust in a recess in the Ministry of Transport?

Why do the Government appear to be so unwilling to take an initiative in road safety? Are they mesmerised by the road lobby?
The whole basis of the consultative document is laissez-faire. There are projections of the likely car ownership in the 1990s, and all other conclusions on rail and public transport are drawn from the basis of allowing an apparently unrestricted expansion of car ownership. That may be a popular view—we have to take people's preferences into account—but it may not be a possible view in light of the energy and other costs that will assume a greater rôle in future projections.
If there are a number of factors in favour of great rail usage, what is the spirit in which the railways face their future? In talking to railway men in South Wales, I am struck by the relatively low morale of the work force. There is a fear of cuts. They have gone through a period of restriction. In my part of the world, more than 70 per cent. of the rail network has been excised since the early 1960s and there are fears that the rail network in Wales will be restricted to the Swansea and Holyhead lines. There are even fears about the Cambrian Coast and the mid-Wales line that is so vital in tourist and community terms, even though certain assurances have been given about the future of the line.
A management that has grown up and been trained in a period of retrenchment and restriction is still adopting a defeatist attitude to the future of rail. I say this despite the introduction of the high-speed train on the line to Swansea which has resulted in a 15 per cent. increase in passenger use of that line. But those who are used to an atmosphere of cuts will find it very difficult to adjust to a period of expansion, as we have seen in British Rail's current defeatist attitude to the future of the Fishguard-Waterford line. I and others have been very distressed by the restictionist criteria that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee has adopted in looking at the future of that service.
That defeatist attitude contrasts with the more buoyant, more expansionist future for rail among our Continental partners which the Select Committee noted in its recent Report, particularly in


Western Germany, in spite of the higher car ownership and usage in West Germany. What I have said about that defeatist attitude must be at least qualified by what we see now as the attitude adopted by the new Chairman, Mr. Peter Parker, who appears to be ready at last to bang the drum for rail, which is bound to have a beneficial effect on morale within the industry.
If we will the end of the greater use of rail, for a number of reasons, can we will the means by a bigger investment and more Government support? On the freight side, I have been very disappointed to see the relatively low take-up of the Section 8 grants for private sidings. Apart from the effect that they would have on freight usage as such, private sidings would also have environmental affects in preventing the rail journey from having to be completed by lorry to the eventual point of delivery.
The Government project £35 million to be allocated under that head for the next five years. The latest figure I have is that by last October only 14 schemes under Section 8, totalling £2·7 million, have been approved. In Wales only two schemes have been approved under the section, with a total of less than £200,000. This lack of push, this lack of drive on Section 8, is scandalous, and there needs to be a Government inquiry into the reasons. Whether the reasons are a lack of will, planning objections or whatever, the performance on Section 8 is very poor.
I agree with the hon. Member for High Peak about the increasing market for wagon load traffic, not just the rôle assigned to rail in the consultative document, that of carrying the bulk traffic—the oil, steel and coal. I shall not pursue that matter, but I shall get on one of my favourite hobby horses—co-operation in the public sector and the way in which it can assist British Rail. I have seen from a number of examples that various nationalised undertakings—the Central Electricity Generating Board, the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board—often adopt policies to the disadvantage of rail, which is also in the public sector. Steel can be taken by rail, but a great deal of the steel for export from my local works is still taken

by road. A new drift mine is being planned in my part of the country. It is still intended that the coal shall be taken to the washeries by lorry, with an adverse environmental impact on local communities.
The new investment of £835 million at the Port Talbot steelworks has been planned with little if any thought to the way in which British Rail might be used to service the expansion. In all the public sector there should be a presumption in favour of the use of rail, to have a cross-subsidisation within the public sector. The onus should always be in favour of rail, within agreed tolerances. Little, if anything, appears yet to have been done to encourage such use of rail within the public sector. I know of examples in my own locality where it is not done, and it should be encouraged.
I turn rapidly to the passenger side and the search for new business. The hon. Member for High Peak has already made some of the points that need to be made about this matter—the additional suburban and cross-country stations, for example. In those areas which suffered particularly acutely from the Beeching surgery in the early 1960s, there may even be a case for reopening some lines or opening to passengers lines which are restricted to freight.
It is a sad commentary on the thinking of the current British Rail management that one of its answers to the new challenges was to have a transfer, albeit with some concessions from the National Bus Company, to buses from part of the rail network. That has been vigorously opposed by the Welsh Consumer Council on the basis of our own experience—we have also been given examples from the High Peak area—of just how few of the bus services which were meant to replace rail in the 1960s still exist. I think that the statutory obligation is to continue those bus services for only two years, and many have died after that, leaving communities isolated.
It is clear that that policy will just not work, for topographical and a number of other reasons. There is still not enough drive behind bus and rail co-ordination. For example, it is scandalous that in my constituency of Swansea a bus station is being planned a mile and a half from the rail station, when there is, or was,


ample space near the rail station to have a combined bus and rail station.

Mr. Le Marchant: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that proper use is made of rail land? As we go round the country we all see an enormous quantity of rail land and cannot help feeling that under British Rail's new policy much more use should be made of it.

Mr. Anderson: I fully agree. So much rail land is hoarded, stored up, sterilised, often for no good reason. I take an example from North Kensington, where one has only to look at the Barlby Road sidings, which could be used for housing in that area of acute housing stress but which British Rail is still hoarding like a squirrel for apparently no good reason. I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the negative policies of British Rail in this respect and the need for more of what is being done on the hotel side and using British Rail land, as at Liverpool Street, for commercial development.
I have mentioned the signal failure in my own area to co-ordinate bus and rail investment in the new bus station. There are many examples from different parts of the country of failure to co-ordinate timetables between bus and rail.
If there is to be an expansionist future for rail, for the objective reasons I have given—environmental, energy and so on—where is the vision that can achieve it? We know that we have in our rail network a major, under-utilised national asset. Too many of our people are prepared to be content with a downward drift of the rail services rather than work for expansion. We need a very different, more radical and exciting approach if we are to use our rail services to their full potential.

2.29 p.m.

Mr. John Cockcroft: I am particularly pleased that this debate should take place today and that you should call me to take part, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have an interest, in that I sit on Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which has been looking at the question of the railways for the past year or so. Moreover, I worked for a short time in the Treasury 10 years ago in the public enterprises division, on work involved with transport. Many of my constituents

in Nantwich, moreover, work for the railways in Crewe.
The conclusions of the Select Committee report on the Nationalised Industries did not receive as much publicity as it might have done on account of the strike and the difficulties that were experienced in obtaining copies of it. I remind the House that the report—which was unanimous—said, in effect, that the present size of the railway network should be retained but that there were many ways in which there could be improvements. It said that the railways, if properly managed, could look forward to a prosperous and successful future.
I take the view that any future drastic reduction in the size of the railway network would be a great mistake. It is, of course, difficult to say definitely that such a statement is justified, because there are many unassessable things that must be taken into account when comparing the cost of road and rail transport. It is difficult to put a figure on the cost of an executive stuck in a car, trying to get into Birmingham in the rush hour, for instance.
I have travelled around looking at the railway systems in other countries. It is apparent that almost every system in the world loses money, and that where networks have been drastically cut down—as in the classic case of New York—the people concerned have bitterly rued the day that it occurred. I hope that it will not happen here.
The Beeching era was a success in that it was essential that lines should be costed, and that had not been done before. It is a difficult exercise because of the allocation of overheads. What was done then, in financial terms, was right. However, the size of a railway network is a political decision. I regret that large areas of the United Kingdom have now been deprived of railways. Were the network now to be reduced from 12,000 to, say, 8,000 miles the constituency that I represent—geographically one of the largest in England—would be largely deprived of railways. All sorts of people, such as old people who cannot afford cars—and increasingly one does not have to be old to be unable to afford a car—would be deprived of their means of getting round the country.
I shall not go over in detail the case for maintaining roughly the present size


of network. That must depend on the Government's assumptions about the cost of traffic congestion; and the danger and damage that is caused by large lorries that are unsuited to many of the roads over which they travel. It also depends on assumptions about future energy requirements and energy supplies in the world; and upon the problems of the oil-consuming countries. All those matters are relevant. There is also the matter of pollution—although that is now a much overworked word and it seems that anything that one does not approve of can be described as pollution. Nevertheless, it is a relevant factor if one defines pollution in the sense of lorry and car fumes and the damage that is done to ancient bridges such as Farndon-Holt Bridge, in my constituency.
Railways do far less damage than most other forms of transport. There are also technological developments concerning the railways. This is an encouraging aspect of the British Rail scene, in which I take a great deal of pleasure. In many ways Britain now leads the world in railway technology. I have travelled on high-speed trains to Wales and other places and I have been enormously impressed by how much has been achieved. I have been impressed not only by very recent developments but by other developments that have taken place during the last decade. Thus the time that it takes to travel from London to Liverpool or Manchester has fallen by one-third, and sometimes by almost a half. Until quite recently there was a great increase in the revenue from those lines.
Another aspect is that the railways are an enormous national asset. We were the first country to build railways in a big way—just as we were the first to do many things about which we can take much pride. It would be foolish to throw away such an asset. The future, by definition, is unknowable, but there may be further technological developments concerning the railway system that will continue to make it a relatively more attractive form of transport.
The United Kingdom—which I hope and expect to remain united—is exactly the right size for a fairly intensive railway network. That does not apply to

such countries as America, which are obviously far larger and where aeroplanes are much more apposite for long-distance journeys. Apart from journeys from London to Scotland—I mean, for example, journeys from London to Sheffield—by the time one has reached the airport and then got away from the airport at the other end one might as well have gone by railway. Air travel also suffers from the inconveniences of fog and bad weather.
However, there are problems about the future of the railways. An integrated transport policy seems to have become the Holy Grail. We heard about it during the sittings of the Sub-Committee. I sometimes wonder whether anyone knows what an integrated transport policy is—apart from co-ordinating bus and train timetables. I have thought about it for many hours and sat through many sessions in Committee, but I am still not sure what it is, except that we should avoid wasteful competition between road and rail transport. Road transport on motorways may be cheaper but, again, we must consider the cost of maintaining the roads as opposed to the railways.
Many mistakes have been made in the past. I can give a classic example that may be relevant if in future the network is reduced. It is the Oxford-Cambridge line, which used to go from Oxford to Bletchley. It was truncated at both ends, and now only the middle section of that line is used. About 10 years ago much money was spent on the line. Diesel engines were put on it, and the unions were encouraged to relinquish some of the stationmaster jobs at the little stations. Had more time been given for negotiation on manning schedules I believe that that line would still be open in its entirety. It was one of the few east-west links in this country. When the railways were built they tended to radiate out of London, and that has remained the case ever since. That is one example of a line that might have been maintained.
I want to draw attention to the fall in the number of people employed on the railways in the last decade or so. It has been quite dramatic. We found that the unions—both privately and at formal hearings—were extremely cooperative in discussing the need for productivity on the railways. I am not


saying that there is not room for considerable improvement. One difficulty concerns the manning schedules. Like so many other things in a country as old and conservative as this one, they are difficult to change. It will take a long time for things to be changed and it will involve particularly delicate negotiation. However, it is undoubtedly true that productivity on our railways—as in other countries—could be substantially increased, given time and patience.
I wish to say a word about the catering facilities on British Railways. I move in a triangle between London, Cambridge and Cheshire, so I possibly spend more time on the railways than most other hon. Members and certainly more time than most members of the public. I have experienced almost every sort of meal on the railways. I feel strongly that the sort of flexibility that exists on the shorter lines, such as that from Kings Cross to Cambridge—where one can have a meal of any type at any time of day, whether it is a sausage or a proper three-course meal—is the sort of thing that the railways should aim for in the future. I am delighted that the new high-speed run to South Wales has been doing so well. On many existing lines, such as that between London and Manchester, British Railways persist in having expensive set meals at set times.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that on the Euston-Preston-Glasgow line some of the things that he has been asking for are being introduced on some trains?

Mr. Cockcroft: Yes, I realise that. Things are moving rapidly in the right direction. I thought I would just give an extra prod. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that matter.
One problem is that there are still three railway unions. There is a widespread feeling, even among trade unionists, that things would be simpler were there fewer unions on the railways. I hope that will come to pass. The travelling public have on occasions suffered in the past because of disputes between the unions which have not necessarily concerned the management of British Railways.
I should like to make a further point which I have made on other occasions. It concerns investment. What is the

investment programme of British Railways? We read about new electrification schemes on lines, such as the Bedford to Liverpool Street line, but there is an increasing consciousness that some lines and rolling stock are being allowed to run down. Commuters often complain about deteriorating services, and so on. Many people ask "Why bother to electrify the relatively short lines? Should not the money be spent on improving existing rolling stock?"
However many Green Papers and White Papers there may be in future, the sooner decisions are made about the railways the better. There has been an improvement in morale on the railways. I wish the new chairman well. The changes in the management structure of British Railways are for the better. It is encouraging to see how many railway-men with a lifetime of experience on the railways are being promoted.

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) on his speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Cockcroft) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on their contributions. The hon. Member for High Peak introduced a very important matter—the future of British Railways.
As two hon. Members have referred to the question of unity between the railway unions—I am a representative of ASLEF—perhaps it would be in order for me to deal briefly with that matter. Over the years various attempts have been made to get one railway union. Such a suggestion is not favoured by any of the three unions representing different grades of railwaymen. The size of a union does not necessarily bring harmony or stop bad industrial relations. It will be recalled that there was a serious dispute between lorry drivers and dockers who belonged to the same union. The solution of industrial disputes is more difficult than merely joining together the different unions into one large union.
Much as I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for High Peak, I must take issue with him on his remarks about rail freight subsidies. I expect that the hon. Gentleman knows that these subsidies have rapidly dwindled. As the hon.


Member for Nantwich said, it is difficult to quantify costs. Bearing in mind the dwindling of the subsidies, it might be argued that there may be other costs for which rail freight does not pay. That argument could be used against road freight. It would be unfair to reduce the rail freight subsidy in too much haste as long as the competitive form of traffic—the juggernaut—still falls short of meeting its resource costs of £5,000 a year. It would seem fair not to abolish the rail freight subsidy until the juggernaut is taxed to its full resource costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East referred to the position of freight in Wales. A large proportion of coal in South Wales is now being carried by road. That is a most unsatisfactory form of transport for such material, but no effort is apparently being made by the two publicly-owned industries concerned to put the matter right.
A large proportion of steel traffic is also carried by road. The only significant rail transport within the iron and steel industry is the carrying of iron ore from Port Talbot to Llanwern. I think that more could be done by way of transferring some of this traffic to rail.
My hon. Friend also touched on the question of oil conservation, and I want to devote most of my speech to that problem. It has become increasingly significant in the last few years, and particularly in the last few weeks. At the beginning of last week a report appeared from the "Workshop on Alternative Energy Strategies". That is the work of a private group of 35 business, Government and academic leaders from 15 leading industrial countries. It stated that the West could face a new energy crisis within the next decade, and
that industrialised countries could run short of oil supplies as early as 1981
—that is a far more serious situation than we have so far imagined—
if Saudi Arabia decides to hold its production at 9 million barrels a day. If a ceiling of 20 million barrels a day were imposed, a world shortage might be postponed until about 1990 but, even on the most optimistic assumptions, oil would be running out within the next 25 years.
It is unlikely that it will be possible to get Saudi Arabia to increase supplies significantly in the next few years. In fact,

I think that the Middle East is likely to go on conserving its oil supplies and possibly restricting them. Therefore, the oil situation is very serious.
This disturbing report
confirms recent warnings by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Central Intelligence Agency…the basic danger is that the world energy situation could become critical. Most Governments and businesses plan for only five to 10 years ahead. The energy gaps which opened up beyond 1985 either were invisible or, if perceived, ignored. Even if governments adopted vigorous conservation policies, energy demand would continue to grow.
It is important to consider the future of British Rail beyond the next five years. Unfortunately, most of the studies on the planning of transport seem to end in the early 1980s. That is true of the Consultative Document, which is inadequate from that point of view. The projection of transport needs after 1981 is almost ignored. A similar study by Prike and Dodgson also ignores that situation.
A study in the Socialist Commentary falls short in the same way. When considering the more distant future of British Rail we should remember not to use the costings of the next few years. We should remember that until 1981 oil will still be plentiful and prices low compared with what they will become later, with dwindling supplies and increasing demand.
I shall refer to an article which is not generally known. I shall quote extensively from it, although I shall do so freely in the interests of brevity. The article is based on a lecture by Sir Peter Masefield at the Sir Seymour Biscoe Tritton Memorial Lecture, called "Energy for Traction," and was printed in the Railway Engineering Journal in March 1975.
Sir Peter said that he was concerned about the future energy problem. He said that in March 1975; and since then the situation has become worse. He said:
One feature has come to dominate all transport operations since the end of 1973. It is the leap upwards in fuel costs as a result of inflation and, even more, from the upwards jacking of oil prices by the OPEC Cartel from 17th October 1973. In the five-and-a-half years since July 1969
—the House should remember that Sir Peter is speaking in early 1975—
the average price of fuel oils for transport in the United Kingdom has increased by five


times—from around 3·5p a gallon to more than 16p a gallon leaving taxation out of account.…
There have been significant increases since then.
Sir Peter went on so say:
transport everywhere is currently dependent upon oil. The modern world is, indeed, oil dominated….In transport, oil now supplies about 91 per cent. of all the energy consumed. This is, clearly a situation which must be viewed with concern, notwithstanding the promise of North Sea oil….
Unfortunately, from an energy point of view, the railways provide only a relatively small proportion of the world's transport effort—about 17 per cent. of the revenue load-t-km operated in the western world. Because modern railways use energy relatively efficiently for the work they do—railways consume only some 3 per cent. of the total energy used in transport. By contrast, road transport (which uses about 78 per cent. of the energy consumed in transport as a whole for the production of 16 per cent. of the load-t-km and air transport (which uses about 12½ per cent. of the total energy for 03 per cent. of the load-t-km) are wholly dependent on oil, as is shipping to complete the total…the day will come when these fossil fuels are no longer available. In the meantime, there can be no doubt that much effort is required to achieve a maximum of efficiency in the use of energy for transport—as for other aspects of modern life.
Sir Peter went on to deal with price escalation. Again I remind the House that he was speaking in 1975. He said:
British Airways"—
and he knows a good deal about that—
turbine fuel costs have increased almost fourfold since 1972…between 1972 and 1975, despite the use of a higher proportion of larger and more efficient aircraft, the fuel element in British Airways' total expenditure has gone up from 10·1 per cent. of total costs…to 26 4 per cent. of total costs.
Everything possible must be done in all forms of transport to gain the maximum of output…from both the fuels and manpower employed.
We must remember that in railways, too, the use of manpower is relatively efficient.
Sir Peter gave a number of other figures which strengthen the case for the maintenance of railways in public transport. He said that
In 1975 road transport will use about 78 per cent. of all transport energy. The motorcar uses half of the total energy consumed in the United Kingdom. The motorcar is a relatively inefficient user of fuel in terms of load-t-km produced. Private cars consume 50 per cent. of the energy used in transport to produce 2 per cent. of the load. Trucks and vans on the road

consume 23 per cent. of the energy to produce 14 per cent. of the load. Aviation consumes 12½ per cent. of the energy to produce 0·3 per cent. of the load. Buses and coaches on the roads consume 5 per cent. of the energy to produce 0·5 per cent. of the load. Sea transport consumes 4½ per cent. of the energy to produce 62 per cent. of the load. Rail transport, which is another efficient form of transport from the energy point of view, consumes 3 per cent. of the energy to produce 17 per cent. of the load.
A similarly good figure for inland waterways is given. That consumes 2 per cent. of the energy to produce 5·8 per cent. of the load.
Sir Peter said:
From this we can draw up a comparative league table of revenue load-tonne-kilometres operated, per unit of energy consumed. Sea transport comes at the top of the league, when we take into account both the energy used and the load-factors achieved. In relative terms: sea transport (chiefly goods) 1,000; railways. 411; inland waterways, 175: road trucks and vans, 44; private cars, 3; aviation, 2.
For passenger transport the order is this, in terms of energy consumed in relation to load: railways, 100—this is leaving out sea transport—buses and coaches, 65; private cars, 25; aviation, 7·5.
This article, which deserves to be better known, makes clear not only the urgency of conservation but also the need to maintain our railway track and, indeed, to extend the services and possibly the track in the future, when fuel shortages will become very serious. I do not think that there is a sufficient awareness of this. I can remember a time in the late 1960's when publicists and fuel experts were talking about closing coal mines and depending entirely on oil. Their projections were overtaken by the events of 1973. Then they began to realise that fuel shortage was not just a political question but one of conservation. So it is that now we have debates in this Chamber that ignore the seriousness of a petroleum shortage in the future.
For example, the Prime Minister said recently that during the next four years investment in the railways will be kept as it is now. I do not know whether he meant in figures or in real terms. However, in four years' time we shall reach the year 1981, which is regarded as the first critical year by the international report to which I have referred. It seems to me that we should now be investing in our public transport, particularly in


railways, and not cutting down investment. Once the oil shortage begins to bite, I think that railways will come into their own. I am certain that if railways continue for a little longer in the next few years, they will then be able to look after themselves. But it is all the more essential now that we should equip them for the tasks ahead.
British Rail seems now to be grappling with this problem successfully. What it needs now is encouragement in the way of investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has shown me the current issue, for June, of Modern Railways, which refers to the view that many of us are taking, which is that there is a good deal to be said for turning back to the classic railway operation, with modern equipment, of course, which we did not have previously, in the form of the air-braked wagonload freight network.
We have been greatly assisted by TOPS, which is ideal for this. Unfortunately, TOPS is not being used as it should be. It can tell us where every wagon is. As one of my friends in ASLEF told me, for instance, TOPS told one divisional officer that there were 200 wagons in sidings somewhere in North Wales two weeks ago, and TOPS told him last week that there were still 200 wagons in North Wales in the sidings. He knew exactly where they were, but they were not being used. We are waiting for them to be used. The wagon-load network is one way out of this problem.
Also, in the June issue of Modern Railways there is an article on the Stag crane, which is described as a new approach to handling containers. The article says,
Now a low-cost lorry-mounted system has been developed which turns any rail siding into a contained terminal. With rising road transport costs forecast, its inventor believes it could bring a freight bonanza for British Rail.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has tabled a Question for Written Answer asking the Secretary of State for his opinion on this system. I am not anti-road; I believe in integration for road and rail traffic both in the passenger and freight sections. I acknowledge that the great bulk

of our traffic will always have to be carried on the roads and that the traffic will expand generally in our increasingly industrialised society.
But our problem as politicians is what to do about British Railways. That is what we are concerned about in this debate. We know that British Railways must be retained, and we also know that the economics of rail transport is concerned with "volume hunger" and with using capacity to as great a percentage as possible in order for British Railways to become viable. In line with increasing costs on the roads I believe that many road hauliers, as some have already decided, will go in for trunk hauling by rail for the longer journey and distribution at both ends, by road.
I also think that the whole future of British Railways would have been improved had the Channel Tunnel been built. As a matter of fact, the article by Sir Peter mentions that the journey to Paris by means of the Channel Tunnel is just about the optimum distance for profitable traffic with passengers. Perhaps even more importantly he should have said that the Channel Tunnel, permitting long haul traffic, would have brought the best returns for freight traffic, because I believe that is the reason why Continental countries are running their rail services more profitably.
I repeat that we are not anti-road. I know there would be a great future for both modes of transport and a great future for this country if both modes were more closely knit and used for the traffic that they are best able to carry.

3.7 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): This seems an appropriate moment for me to intervene. I join other hon. Members who have thanked the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) for giving us the opportunity of discussing these matters this afternoon. There is so much that I could reply to if this were the appropriate occasion. I was interested in a number of the comments made by hon. Members which related to wide issues of policy. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) told us what we might have heard had he been fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair on 20th January in our discussions on the consultation document.
I wish that it were in order for me to follow my hon. Friend into some of the byways that he pursued, particularly those related to road safety. I can only say that I very much welcomed his interest and I shall rejoice in the pressure that he continues to bring to bear on me and on others in this direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) discussed the relative costs of road and rail. I do not disagree with much of what he said. I welcomed what he said at the end of his remarks about the need to recognise the rôle for both road and rail.
The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Cockcroft) said something about technology. I agree that we have made a number of important advances in technology for our railways of which we have every reason to be proud. No doubt these are issues to which we shall return in the future.
I had much sympathy with the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for High Peak. He referred to his personal experiences in travelling from Macclesfield to London on a Sunday. I detest Sunday travel at all times and I have the misfortune, to which I am not looking forward, of travelling back from Leeds to London this Sunday. But it is difficult to maintain and renew the railway track without sometimes inconveniencing travellers and obliging them to travel more slowly. It is something of an uncomfortable experience and I am sure that British Railways will do its best to alleviate the inconvenience which it represents to the travelling public.
I am in a slight difficulty in this respect because of two reasons of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware. In the first place the White Paper is now moving through its final stages, and any major statement on the railways makes sense only against a whole range of policy options, for public transport and the private sector, for road as well as for rail.
I do not think the House has had an unreasonably long time to wait for the White Paper, although I understand the impatience of hon. Members. The consultation document was published barely over a year ago and consultations continued until the end of 1976. Indeed, the debate in the House did not take

place until 20th January. Therefore, if the Government are to do justice to these expressions of opinion in a sensitive area in which the views of many people are entitled to be considered, the drafting of a White Paper—a policy document that could run to 30,000 words—is bound to take time. It is my responsibility and that of the Government as a whole to endeavour to get the matter right, although it will be for the House to judge in due course whether we have achieved that aim. No doubt the opportunity will be taken at an early stage after the White Paper to discuss the matters which it raises, including those which have been touched upon today.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the Minister give some idea exactly when the Government White Paper will be published?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot go further than I have already gone. I hope that it will be published within a month or so, but the processes which White Papers undertake are very thorough. Although I do not claim that the recent printers' strike has delayed the White Paper, I would point out that the normal processes perhaps took somewhat longer than I judged, since I have not produced a document of this kind before. I hope that the White Paper will come forward shortly. I shall endeavour to keep the House informed.
Secondly, there is the Select Committee Report. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Nantwich was a member of that Committee. The House knows that it is normal practice for the Government to consider such reports and to publish their conclusions, usually in White Paper form or something similar. We have had the Select Committee Report for a matter of weeks. We shall consider it carefully. We shall take account of it as far as we can in the White Paper, but a considered reply according to the normal practice of the House will come separately. Generally, I very much welcome the Select Committee Report. Both in Government and in Opposition I have long been a supporter of Select Committees, though I appreciate that that is not shared by everybody. I was pleased to see my faith justified in this latest Report of the Select Committee.
I agree with the importance of some of the administrative matters of detail


which have been mentioned in this debate involving the travelling public and coordination between bus and rail time tables—for example, in terms of the building of interchanges. I was sorry to hear the story unfolded by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East because the other day I was privileged to open the Bradford interchange. Perhaps that is a rather grand project for 1977, but it was conceived some years ago. I am pleased that by this means bus passengers are able to step virtually off the bus and on to the train, or vice versa, and that private cars are able to park near by. We must seek to make our view on coordination and integration more meaningful.
I value this debate on the railways because it has made it possible for me to refer to the concern which has been expressed about the carrying of pigeons and other livestock. The British Railways Board has today announced its decision to continue to carry pigeons and other livestock. This decision follows the recent discussion by the Central Transport Consultative Committee. The Board now proposes to open discussions with users with the aim of devising a new system for the carriage of livestock on the lines of detailed recommendations made by the CTCC. In the meantime, the traffic will be carried as normal. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome this demonstration of the Board's respect for the interests of consumers.

Mr. Anderson: I welcome the announcement, but does my right hon. Friend agree that this problem relates not only to the fact of carriage, but to the recently increased costs of such carriage, which bear particularly heavily on small owners. Will consultations with users pursue the possibility of reducing the current high level of costs?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that it will. This is very much a matter for the British Railways Board. To be fair to the Board, it is faced with the difficulty of working under constrictions placed on it by the Government and by Parliament at second stage and finding out how it can manage in view of its revenue and costs. I am sure that, having noted the reaction and reached this agreement, the Board will do

its best to meet the case on consumers as far as it can. I am sure that the Chairman will note the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for High Peak referred to this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East talked about a "bullish view". I appreciate that there have been problems of morale on the railways, but the railways are a great national asset and there is a central and continuing rôle for them.
The railways have four major tasks: as a major carrier of passengers between centres; as a major carrier of commuters, particularly in London and the South-East; as carriers of large flows of freight, especially bulk traffic; and, under their public service obligation, providing more stopping services in many parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North referred to the carrying of coal and steel in South Wales. I was disappointed to hear what they said about the extent to which this traffic is not carried by rail, because I agree that the strength of the railways on the freight side lies very much in the carriage of bulk traffic such as coal and ores. I hope that the railways will use marketing techniques. This point was made in the course of our discussions. I agree that British Rail must use all its marketing techniques to get its proper share of rail freight.
In the area of freight, the railways are contributing to our industrial strategy. I have said that, provided the assessment of relevant costs is fair, freight must pay its way and there is no case for a subsidy, but I believe that the railways have a substantial and profitable freight operation ahead of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East referred to Section 8 grants. As he knows, on page 20 of the Annual Report and Accounts of the British Railways Board, which have just been published, there is a table indicating the situation with regard to applications for grant under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1974. The table shows that 18 applications have been approved, that 32 are being considered, and that 90 are being prepared. I believe that Section 8 has made an important contribution—not a large one, but a useful one—and I am sure that no worthwhile scheme as


laid down under the 1974 Act will be rejected for a lack of funds.
As for the passenger services, I think the debate has confirmed that there are two significant areas of policy. The first relates to the size of the subsidy in its relation to fares and the second to the rate of investment in the railways. I want to say something about both those things.
As to the first—and I know that the hon. Member for High Peak recognises this—the dilemma is very simple. As I have said on many occasions during the past few months, we pay for the railways either through fares, or through rates and taxes. There is no other way, and both are bound to be uncomfortable, especially at times of inflation.
When fares go up, no one likes it. I do not; why should anyone else? At the same time, none of us can argue that, when the man on average earnings, with two children, pays £21 a week in tax, there are enthusiastic taxpayers wanting to see themselves paying more in order to subsidise the railway system. We have to find a way through this very difficult problem.
A number of other countries whose railways are running much higher deficits than ours are worried about the size of those deficits. For instance, in West Germany, which is much richer than we are, they have been talking in drastic terms of a reduction of their network by one-quarter to one-third. They have found it necessary to talk in terms which I would not use because of the equation between fares, revenue and subsidy.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I expect that my right hon. Friend is aware that the deficit in Germany was running last year at £3,250 million, and British Rail has already suffered much more from closures than have the German railways.

Mr. Rodgers: I think that is true. But the point remains that I do not think that anyone believes that there can be an open-ended subsidy for the railways. There have to be limits, because if we do not get the money out of rates and taxes and fares, we have to cut another essential public service. It is a question of finding the right balance. It is much easier to do that when public expenditure is rising than when it is stationary. One

of my difficult problems with the White Paper was how to get a quart into a pint pot, or how to get the priorities right when there is no more money to spend. So our view of the railways and how they should bear the burden of their costs is relevant.
On many services, there is a subsidy of between 2p and 20p a passenger-mile, and some of these are very high figures. We cannot ignore them when trying to work out how we provide for the needs of the railways, including what balance should be struck between what commuters ought to pay and what the taxpayers should pay.
On balance, although we all accept that, in order to maintain this valuable national asset, there must be a substantial public subsidy, at the same time, those who are regular travellers on the network and who benefit most from the services it provides must make a reasonable and, in times of inflation, rising contribution to its costs.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East for choosing a phrase which sums the situation up well. He had spoken in favour of the railway network and rightly attached importance to it in terms with which I would find it difficult to disagree. He said that if we define the ends, can we will the means? That is the basic point.
Sometimes I have to say that we do define the ends but duck the question of willing the means. But I am afraid that for the Government of the day that is not enough. We have to find how it can all be done. This is true also of investment in the railways. Perhaps what is remarkable is that, despite the current financial situation, investment in our railways has not been cut. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North said, our aim is to keep it steady over the next four years. Even though the level is not what the Board might want—and it will have difficult decisions to make—it gives it a clear idea of what resources will be available to it in the short term. It is doubtful whether a decision to increase investment now could properly be implemented before the 1980s, in any case.
In the longer term, new decisions will have to be made in the light of changing circumstances. But of course we must approach our decisions flexibly, in the same way as the railways must be flexible


to meet changing needs, because that is their purpose. Both the Board and the unions understand the problems, and even within the current restraints the Board is making significant progress in improving and modernising its services.
As the House knows, quite apart from the decision I made last year on the electrification of the Bedford-St. Pancras line, I have quite recently announced a new high-speed train for the London to Penzance service and approved the building of 250 new coaches for the inner London suburban services on the Southern Region.
I wish to refer briefly to productivity and to say that it is, in the first instance, a matter for the Board's day-to-day management. There is always room for improvement, and the Board and the trade unions recognise that. Inevitably, changes take time, but the record of the railways in this respect is a good deal better than some have suggested. The railways carried more freight in 1976 than in 1975, using fewer wagons and locomotives. Railway manpower has been reduced by over 7,000 in 1976 while revenue has been increased. That will be of interest to the hon. Member for Nantwich.
I come now to exports. This is an issue which has not been referred to, but the tribute paid to the technology in the railways could flow over into a recognition that there is a vast resource here of technical and managerial expertise which is being marketed abroad. The competition will be tough, but the recent large wagon order from Kenya is an example of how this project can succeed. The Board will have the full support of the Government in its endeavours. These have important consequences for the railways and affect employment prospects.
My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East and Preston, North had a good deal to say about energy. I simply say that I acknowledge the importance of this and realise that we must not prejudice the long-term by bad short-term decisions. Unfortunately, the problem of dealing with the energy aspects of transport is not easy because the most drastic solution and, perhaps, the one most in keeping with President Carter's

statement, would be to use a pricing policy to ensure large increases in the costs paid by road transport. I do not believe that the House would be any more enthusiastic about that than it was about the Chancellor's modest Budget proposal to increase petrol tax. Energy considerations must be an important matter in all transport planning. They will be very much in my mind as I approach the final decisions on my White Paper.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly since I have not been present for most of the debate. We are constantly hearing of what President Carter has said over an enormous range of subjects. I hope that we shall not give the impression that we shall be dragged on President Carter's coattails over a great many interests. These decisions should be ours alone, irrespective of what President Carter may decide for America.

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about where the decisions lie. In this interdependent world the views expressed by one leading statesman of one country must be taken into account when consideration is given to how far we have a common interest in world energy supplies. The idea that decisions on these matters will be made other than by the Government with the consent of Parliament is not realistic.
I come now to the complementary rôles of the Board and the Government. The Government's task is to determine the place of the railways in the transport scene and the resources that they can have. I have a great faith in the future of the railways. They have a vital and a central rôle to play. It is the Board's job to use the resources available to provide a railway system which gives the Government, the passenger, the customer and the taxpayer the best value for money. It is not for me to deal with the question why there is never ice available on Sunday or any problems of catering. This is not because I am indifferent to such matters but because it would be wrong for a Minister to try to assume managerial responsibility for an industry for which he has responsibility to this House.
I am confident that the British Railways Board and its new Chairman, Mr.Peter Parker,


appreciate the complementary rôles between myself as the representative of the Government and Mr. Parker as the representative of the Board, and I believe that the relationship between the Board, under Mr. Parker's direction, and the railway unions is closer than ever.
It is my job to set the framework and it is for the Board, in conjunction with the railway unions, to secure a well-run and effective railway system. That is precisely what this country wants and precisely why the hon. Member for High Peak so wisely and so much to our advantage raised this matter.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) on raising this subject and on the exceptionally able way in which he did so. As he said, there are many real problems facing our railways industry and the sort of approach suggested by my hon. Friend had much support on both sides of the House. His approach of getting the maximum value for the money spent must be right, and will be applauded.
I also compliment the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who for once did not speak about the Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea, and the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). Both hon. Members spoke about energy conservation, and the hon. Member for Preston, North quoted at length from a magazine article written by Sir Peter Masefield. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the end of the article, when Sir Peter said:
From all of this, in British transport in future years we must strive for higher productivities".
That is a point worth making, because it was one of Sir Peter's major conclusions.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I did not leave out that part of the article for any ulterior motive, but because I was already taking too long. My point was that if railways are run to capacity, productivity will increase automatically.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his position clear. Another point at the conclusion of that

article takes up what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said in his intervention during the Secretary of State's speech about the position of the United States, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer always seeks to pray in aid. Sir Peter said:
On average, each citizen of the United States uses twice as much energy in a year as does an inhabitant of the United Kingdom
We should not push the comparison with the United States too far.
I am not sure that the Secretary of State has taken us much further down the track towards his transport policy. Having been presented with this unrivalled opportunity to reveal some of his main findings—which we should all have welcomed—he has gravely disappointed us. I hope that he will not disappoint us further when the White Paper eventually appears.
I do not know whether I misheard the right hon. Gentleman, but did he suggest that the White Paper would run for 30,000 words?

Mr. William Rodgers: I said that it might run up to about 30,000 words and that that was the sort of figure that I had in mind.

Mr. Fowler: In that case, it looks like breaking new ground, not only in the length of time that it has taken to produce. We have been waiting three and a half years, and a 30,000-word White Paper will be something indeed.
If I may make one point while the Secretary of State is with us—

Mr. William Rodgers: May I just say—

Mr. Fowler: May I make my point first? On the last occasion when two volumes of a consultation document were presented, the then Secretary of State—we have had quite a number of Secretaries of State—presented that document to the Press and many outside bodies well before it was presented to hon. Members in the House. If the White Paper is to be so long, perhaps we may have discussions between any channels that the right hon. Gentleman cares to open about the way in which this great volume can be made available to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about transport at the same time as it appears on desks in Fleet Street, and not after.

Mr. William Rodgers: I certainly give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman asks for. In the publication of the White Paper I shall be very properly bound by the well-understood rules of the House about the availability of White Papers. I would not think of departing from them.
On the other point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, I am beginning to feel rather anxious. I have been so busy writing words that I have not been counting them carefully. If the White Paper turns out to be somewhat shorter than 30,000 words, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that it has been axed by my colleagues. It will be only that I could not count properly.

Mr. Fowler: This is becoming more and more mysterious. First, we have had to wait three and a half years for a White Paper and have been expecting it at any time. At one stage we were told that it was to be a 30,000-word White Paper. Now it is clear that great chunks are being taken out of it or that the Secretary of State cannot count, which also does not give us great confidence about what is to appear. I shall now leave the White Paper to one side.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Cockcroft) said, this debate is well timed, because it comes only days after the publication of the Select Committee's Report on British Rail. That report is full of international comparisons, but, as I have suggested before, there is one comparison not in that report which is of particular force as we wait for the Secretary of State's White Paper, and that is the comparison with the position in the United States, where the railway system was allowed to run down and decay, maintenance was neglected, and the service became totally unreliable. However, in the last five or six years the United States Government have decided that a system is needed and a new system is being re-formed at vast cost—Amtrack for passengers and Con-rail for freight. The cost of the development runs not to millions but to billions of dollars.
The United States' example has a great deal of force for us, because it stands as a warning of what can happen—most of all, the cost of getting policy decisions

wrong, and the cost of putting them right again.
I wish to make one point clear. I believe that it is the united desire and aim of hon. Members on both sides that the British railway industry should have a real future. I pay tribute to the many achievements of British Rail, including the development of the high-speed train and, as the Secretary of State said, the export achievement that British Rail has maintained in recent months.
As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak rightly pointed out in his motion, the future of the industry is inextricably linked with the ability of the passenger and the taxpayer to pay. There is little doubt that if we see the kind of fare rises that we have seen in the last two years it will have a profound effect on the industry. There is no doubt about the major cause. After every conceivable reservation had been made on price restraint, the additional fare increases were the direct result of wage inflation that the current Government presided over in the first part of their period in office.
Of course, the effect has been felt—and this is the tragedy—at a time when the Government have changed tack and have limited pay. I am not sure, even now, that everyone fully understands the position of rail passengers and particularly the position of rail commuters in this country.
Thousands upon thousands of commuters face a real crisis. Their fares have been doubled at a time when their incomes have been held down. Not only has their standard of living been reduced generally, in the same way as the standard of living of the rest of us; their cost of travel to work has increased to such an extent that some of them have shifted from using the railways while others have shifted their jobs nearer home. That point should be underlined. They have faced the biggest fare increase that this country has ever known at a time when their incomes have been severely limited. That is the problem. It is a real problem, which is often acute, and it must be taken seriously.
We are talking not of the so-called affluent middle class but of thousands of men and women who have gone out of London for one reason alone, and that is to seek cheaper housing. They have


been encouraged by the policies of successive Governments in making that decision.
I can give just one example which was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in this problem. The example relates to the journey from Chelmsford—which is a town that I know well, because I was brought up in it—to Liverpool Street. Two years ago the cost of annual second-class season ticket from Chelmsford to Liverpool Street was £167. It is now £390. During less than three years the cost has increased by £223, which is more than 130 per cent. Many commuters are now paying more than £500 to get to work. At the same time other travel costs have also been increased. That is a significant element, which we must take into account, and it is right that it is included in the motion.
Another interest that we must consider is that of the taxpayer. One of the ironies of the present situation is that although fares have risen by this unprecedented amount, transport subsidies have also increased. In 1975–76 transport subsidies totalled more than £600 million, of which £410 million went to the railways and a further £242 million to investment in British Rail. During the last year the position has improved and it is a welcome improvement, particularly during Peter Parker's first year as Chairman of the British Railways Board. Even now we are spending about £354 million in operating support. That is about £1 million a day.
Clearly, as the Secretary of State has agreed, at a time when any Government must be aiming to reduce public expenditure that amount must be seriously examined.
I do not pretend that it will be easy, but transport policy must seek to reconcile various interests. They are our interest in the future of the industry, the passengers' interest in fares and in avoiding the kind of fares explosion that has occurred in this country during the past two or three years, and the taxpayers' interest in achieving economy and value for money. We are particularly assisted in these matters by a number of reports, notably the report of the Select Committee

and British Railways Board's response to the consultation document.
One thing that the Select Committee has achieved in its report is the end of a particular argument—the argument about possible improvements in productivity. For the last 18 months I have been putting this point forward, not always with the approval or acceptance of hon. Members opposite. I have said that productivity has been and should be an essential part of policy. It must be remembered that in the railways industry wages and salaries account for more than two-thirds of operating costs. Therefore, improvements in productivity and the use of manpower must be vital to the railways' financial health. Those are not my words; they are the words in the Government's consultation document, and they are right.
No one underestimates the significant manpower saving that has been achieved in the last 13 years on the railways. A total staff reduction from 476,000 to 231,000 appears in the consultation document, and now it is rather lower than that. Nevertheless, all the evidence before us suggests that further significant improvements are also possible over the next three or four years.
Clearly, a great deal of outside attention has been paid to this matter in reports such as that of Pryke and Dodgson, but let us take the evidence of the British Railways Board itself. In its response to the consultation document the British Railways Board, then under Sir Richard Marsh, reported that a total manpower reduction of 43,000 was possible by 1981—not, I emphasise, by massive redundancy but by natural wastage and the control of recruitment. That message has now been underlined even more emphatically by Peter Parker, the new Chairman of the British Railways Board.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak reminded us that Peter Parker said:
Productivity is the rock on which we must build the future of railways.
The one outside piece of evidence that I would use is that of the Select Committee—an all-party group—which came conclusively to the view that productivity could be improved.
All the evidence seems to point the same way in this respect. All the evidence points to the fact that such improvements


are possible, and common sense dictates that such opportunities should be taken. Improved productivity is in the interests of the fare-paying passenger, the taxpayer and the industry itself. In that respect, at least, all three interests are the same. Productivity in the industry is and must be the key, but clearly that by itself is not sufficient for an approach to the problems of the railways.
It is also necessary to decide which, if any, businesses within British Railways need support. In some cases there is no justification in principle for such support. We can argue about the phasing out of support, but in principle I can see no reason for it.
The most notable case, I suggest, is that of rail freight subsidies. When I spoke in the debate on the consultation document in January I said:
In the freight area, we want decisions left to the customer. The Government have a rôle in devising fair track costs for both rail and road. But the rôle of the Government should not extend to seeking to direct traffic. Both rail and road have natural advantages—rail for heavy bulk traffic and road for the many shorter distances in this country. But, in that choice, the man most likely to get the decision right is the customer."—[Official Report, 20th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 727.]
I was therefore extremely glad when, at the Road Haulage Association's annual dinner, the Secretary of State confirmed that this was now his policy. He stated emphatically that the customer was in the best position to make the choice between different modes. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's conversion to our policy on this matter. We have consistenly put it forward, and we hope that it will be emphasised further in the White Paper.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also agree that there is no reason why Inter-City should not be profitable. Unlike the United States, for example, rail in this country is quicker and cheaper than air. The only real competitor is road. I agree with the Select Committee about the National Bus Company, and the opinion that it should cover its costs and that there sould be fair competition.
The position is more difficult when we consider commuter services. The nature of the services needed in the morning and evening peak hours demands more labour and equipment than is necessary throughout the rest of the day. It has been shown to be extremely difficult

throughout the world to run commuter services on a break-even basis. The difficulty of the profitability of commuter services faces every nation. I believe that support will be necessary over the next period. It is important that commuters should have the opportunity to adjust. We shall therefore watch with the greatest care to see what the White Paper says on that matter.
We part company with the Select Committee on its suggestion that a new tax should be placed upon employers, to be paid as a levy to British Rail. In its report the Select Committee says that a form of financing public transport facilities in large cities could consist of a tax upon central area employers whose work forces generate a large share of the unremunerative peak period demand.
That theory is unjustifiable, on a number of grounds. It contains no incentive for increased performance by the railways. It represents an extra tax on employers who are already hard-hit by the present level of taxation. Perhaps worst of all, it would have an effect that is not intended. It would encourage firms to move out of the city centres. That would defeat the policy of trying to bring back life into the city centres. I shall need a great deal of convincing that an extra tax on employers is the right way of solving the problem.
In any agreed approach to the railway industry it is necessary to follow the advice set out in a leader in The Times last year, that where specific uneconomic services are necessary and are wanted, public transport operators should be recompensed for them. I agree with that in principle, but in practice it brings us back to a major obstacle—the identification of specific uneconomic rail services. Such identification is no longer, possible because British Rail does not identify the costs of separate services. There are difficulties involved in producing a better identification-of-cost system than we have at the moment.
Above all, I believe that the Government need a yardstick. An essential part of an agreed approach on the industry is that the Government must have better financial information on the way in which public money is spent in the industry. The taxpayer is still paying over £360 million a year in operating subsidies and the passenger is facing sharply increased fares.
It is in the interests of both the taxpayer and the rail user that better information is provided. That is also in the interests of the Government. No one should disguise the difficulties facing the railways.
I welcome the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak in introducing this debate. It is an important industry and in many of its functions it cannot be replaced. That is particularly true of the commuter passengers that it carries.
The Government have a rôle in ensuring that future. But it is not only, or even mainly, a job for the Government. The industry must make every effort to produce the efficient service that is needed by passenger and taxpayer alike and which, in the long term, is in the best interest of the Government and industry.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I should very much like to take up the last few words uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). I believe that one of the most important facets of the future of British Rail that must be given very serious consideration is the position of the Board with regard to the Government.
We have recently seen the Government imposing certain decisions upon the Central Electricity Generating Board. I believe that it is wrong in essence for Government to impose decisions upon the Boards of nationalised industries. If the Boards are as efficient as they are supposed to be, as I am sure they are in almost every case—I believe that Mr. Peter Parker has made very good progress in his first year—they should be interfered with as little as possible by Government.
All of the nationalised industries are engaged in high technology and are industries in which very considerable capital investment has to be made. Extremely difficult long-term decisions about equipment and the operations of those industries must be taken by the Boards. The Government should interfere as little as possible—indeed, I would

say not at all—in the decisions that must be taken on these matters, because with a change of Government and with differing conditions in the economy, attempts may be made to overturn some of the programmes that the nationalised industries, and British Rail in particular, have considered absolutely essential to the future welfare of the public and of the industry that they are operating.
What also disturbs me is something that has grown up in relation to control of the nationalised industries. We have seen it particularly in railways, where the public and above all, commuters, are bound, without any possibility of making anything other than puerile objections to measures such as fare increases. Furthermore, we as Members of Parliament may not raise what are termed the day-to-day operations of the nationalised industries—and in the case of the railways, fares—in the House of Commons. I believe that it is the day-to-day operations, above all, on which Parliament should be able to question the nationalised industries, through Ministers, because of the effect that they have on the lives of the people.
Particularly is that so in regard to commuters. Those of us who represent constituencies to the South-East Region know full well the problems faced by many people from our constituencies who have to travel daily to London, to and from their work. The enormous increase in fares has put many of them on the breadline. Young people who went to the areas that we represent in order to purchase cheap houses now find that because of the enormous increases in rail fares and mortgage repayments it is beyond their ability to keep pace with the cost of living. I hope that the Minister will try to ensure that there are no increases in fares in those areas for commuters in the foreseeable future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward proposals for a railway policy which meets the needs of passengers, customers and taxpayers while ensuring a future for the industry.

Orders of the Day — WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [20th May].

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — ANIMAL WELFARE (EXPORT OF LIVE ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER)BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): As it appears from the result of the Division that 40 Members are not present, the matter is not decided in the affirmative.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the Family Law Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.—[Mr. Snape]

That the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.—[Mr. Snape]

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES

That the Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1977, a draft of which was

Orders of the Day — DUNFERMLINE COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION FOR WOMEN (CHANGE OF NAME) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — FARRIERS (REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House—[Mr. Mates.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 13.

Division No. 1491
AYES
[4.01 p.m.


Cockcroft, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhodes James, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Michael Mates and


Mackay, Andrew James
Sims, Roger
Mr. F. A. Burden.




NOES


English, Michael
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Pavitt, Laurie



Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Steel, Rt Hon David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Le Marchant, Spencer
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Brian Sedgmore.


Madden, Max
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Snape.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Michael Morris: As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been trying for a number of weeks to obtain this Adjournment debate on services to exporters. My interest in exporting goes back many years, principally to the time I spent as an executive with the Reckitt and Colman group in India and Sri Lanka, and my time in Canada and Pakistan. I first put my thoughts on paper in a Bow Group pamphlet in 1967.
My current interest was stimulated into action when I discovered, almost by


chance, last autumn, when the Government were making their round of cuts, that amongst those cuts—almost incredibly, it seemed to me—was a decision that there should be a cutback of 10 per cent. on the British Overseas Trade Board—and that at a time when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were standing week after week at the Dispatch Box emphasising to the House, and, through the House, to the country, that our future depended on export-led growth.
I submitted then, and still do, that the need for economies in public spending is appreciated and supported not just on the Conservative Benches but throughout the country, but I also submit that the one area that should not have been cut is exporting, except in the case of a service that is no longer needed or is not fully utilised.
I thought, however, that rather than just expressing my personal views it would be of more value to the House to find out the views of those at the sharp end—our exporters in the field—so I circulated nearly 350 trade associations, chambers of commerce and export clubs asking for their views on and attitudes to a number of the export services provided by Government and quasi-Government agencies.
I have to confess that the response was overwhelming, not just in terms of quantity—although there was plenty of that—but in the depth of the consideration given to the questions and the length of the answers. This afternoon I wish to pick up the highlights of some of the answers, but I shall be happy to make my papers available to the Department if it wishes.
One central point emerges: nowhere can I or any exporters find a Government strategy for exporting or an assessment of what services are needed to achieve the goals set out by the Government of the day. All that we see—and this is recognised across the Floor of the House—is the disappointing decline of our share of world trade over the past 25 years.
I believe that there is much in Lord Kaldor's thesis that our problems are structural and marketing, and have relatively little to do with exchange rates. Certainly that is my experience and broadly that of the clients whom I have

served, and, indeed, it has been expressed in many of the letters that I have received as a result of my inquiries. I am also pleased to say that the latest NEDO working party has come to very much the same conclusion.
I should like to move on to some specific areas. Much of my time has been taken up with BOTB activities, and I should like firmly to put on record my thanks to Sir Frederick Catherwood for the co-operation that he has given me.
I deal first with joint ventures. There is no doubt that in the opinion of the exporting world these are a success. They are probably the most important service provided apart from ECGD, and everyone knows that they should be expanded and not cut back.
The Government's working paper BOTAC/77 suggests that there are exporters who are not serious. Certainly my inquiries and the evidence lead me to doubt that statement. In item 2 of this paper the point is made that
No charge should be such as to deter serious users of the services concerned.
Later, under item 6, the paper says:
Demand for many Board Services has been growing and the Board is concerned to find equitable but effective means of managing this growing demand within the resources made available to it.
We do not want to deter exporters. We recognise that demand is growing, yet somehow we manage to come forward with not just a 10 per cent. cut for joint ventures, but a 25 per cent. cut-back. Since, according to what the Chancellor said during Question Time earlier this week, there is some room for manoeuvre in the Government's finances, I suggest that, at the least, this cut-back of £700,000-odd should be reinstated.
The paper goes on to propose certain increased charges. As the Minister knows, last year the charges for exhibition space were £4 per square metre. This year the figure is £6. The paper proposes that the charges should go up in three years' time to £45. I suggest that this increase is out of all proportion. It is interesting to note that a number of trade associations, particularly in the footwear and lighting industry, have checked out the full cost of the exhibitions that they attend and have found it to be considerably below £45 per square metre.
The proposed discounts for new exporters participating in new joint ventures are insufficient and could make it difficult to encourage manufacturers to export. Instead of the 50 per cent. discount proposed for year 1, the consensus seems to be that it would be more sensible to have a two-thirds discount for year 1 with a one-third discount for year 2. As a marketing man, I would not necessarily expect to make a profit on my exports in year 1.
There is also considerable questioning of the standard charge both for joint ventures and British pavilions. Exhibitors on the joint ventures feel that as they incur higher costs in any case they should be charged at a lower rate.
There has also been a policy change with regard to the number of firms that should be eligible. It has been suggested that there should be a minimum of nine or 10 firms. There are a great many industries in which it is much more useful to have five or six effective companies taking part and doing a good job than it is to stick to this figure of nine or 10. I hope that we can get some extra flexibility here.
The Minister will know that his Department has had a long and detailed submission from the Ship and Boat Builders' National Federation demonstrating how the industry's exports have risen from £20 million to over £80 million in four years. The federation believes that this is mainly as a corollary—and the evidence that I have supports this—of the increased participation in joint ventures and outward missions. I pay tribute to the federation's help to me. It has certainly emphasised the importance of continued joint venture support. I quote briefly from its letter, in which it said:
The British boating industry has established a regular presence overseas and should it cease to appear as a group at the foreign shows the advantage gained would be completely lost and competitors step in.
In its statement to the Minister's Department the federation demonstrates in frightening detail what are the implications of the increased costs on the square metre basis. There are other, specific points, made by other chambers of commerce. They say that in their general opinion the cut-back is on too broad a basis. They suggest that there has been

no in-depth analysis to single out those industries of potential, which have growth capabilities.
Amazingly, from my point of view, the cut-back does not take account of the priority industries singled out at the Chequers talks in 1975. It seems that the left hand does not tell the right hand where the priorities lie. There is also the point that the BOTB requires a commitment at least five months ahead. For some of the smaller industries it has to be longer. Most exporters feel that that length of prior commitment is unrealistic and that too often opportuniites come up too late for them to be able to apply.
Exporters also feel that the BOTB has failed to recognise the extent of rationalisation of European exhibitions in many industries. In certain industries, particularly lighting and engineering, there has been a great rationalisation of the number of exhibitions. If there is to be a 25 per cent. cut-back exporters feel that they will miss major markets.
The Minister may feel that I am being excessively critical, but I have received a long letter from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, one of our leading chambers, saying:
The Chamber values highly the work of BOTB and it is convinced that the Nation's investments in the grant aiding of missions has paid and is paying a very high rate of return in terms of the National balance of payments problem. It would, therefore, be a matter of very serious regret and concern (and indeed astonishment in the context of the Nation's economic circumstances) if any projected cut back in BOTB activities were to result in radical readjustments to the Outward Missions programmes.
That view is echoed by every trade association that has written to me, by every chamber of commerce and by almost every exporter. The Government would do well to reflect on that grass-roots advice.
There has been a strong adverse reaction to the £50 charge per trade inquiry to overseas posts and there is an irritant factor about the way in which travel subsidies operate. The consensus among trade associations is that the same system should apply throughout, namely, a system based on the Outward Mission Scheme, in which a set sum is paid for a journey no matter how the individual gets there.
I have always been particularly interested in the Queen's Award to Industry. It has been in existence for 12 years, with minor changes, one of the most recent of which was the inclusion of firms involved in our invisible earnings. There is still pride in winning an award, but industry and commerce are sceptical about its commercial or promotional value. The consensus that I have received is that the award is beginning to look a little tired, and needs a revamp.
Could we not involve an incentive in the award so that the winners could be given, say, free air travel by British Airways or British Caledonian? It would be in the Government's interest, perhaps by using the COI, to ask some of the major sales promotion companies in this country to pitch a presentation for a revamped award and see what ideas come forward.
On Monday, we discussed the Annan Report on the future of broadcasting. One of my regrets was that Lord Annan was not asked to review the BBC Overseas Service and, that it does not feature in the "Think Tank" review of overseas services. The BBC Overseas Service broadcasts in 21 languages as well as in English all over the world. To many it is a political lifeline. To others it is a major source of technical information on the progress of British industry. Regretfully, it is seen by the BBC to be less important than local radio and it is certainly unused by many in industry. The time has come for a thorough review of the role of the Overseas Service and particularly how it can help exporters.
The Minister will expect me to say a word about the ECGD, which continues to be a well-respected and welcome service. However, there is still criticism about the lack of flexibility of the Department in terms of its adaptation to ever-changing circumstances.
I have received specific pleas from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors about the lack of understanding of consultancy services and the time taken to get reactions. The Institution and other bodies, such as the Concrete Society, would like the present £1 million contract minimum dropped to £250,000. There are also the pleas that I have received from the Fine Art Guild which, by the nature of its trade, is involved in verbal contracts. Its members feel that the Department

fails to understand the nature of their problems.
I believe that the Government recognise that many contracts nowadays are on a project basis, which makes individual company cover inappropriate. There has been a better understanding of the mechanics of tender and performance bonds, but there are still instances in which the ECGD, for one reason or another, will not get involved. The result is that a company must go to its own joint stock bank. When it gives help, that bank puts it against the company's normal overdraft facilities, with the result that those facilitiese are quickly used up. I suggest urgent talks between the senior management of the ECGD and the directors of the joint stock banks to ease this problem at the highest level. There was a welcome Press release this morning from the joint stock banks about their rôle in exports.
I have had endless pleas for more favourable terms on pre-shipment finance on smaller contracts up to £100,000, with a considerable amount of detail provided by the Coventry Chamber of Commerce.
I should like to say a few words about export documentaation. I have received pleas for the removal of "T" forms for EEC trade, and pleas that EUR forms should be allowed to be lodged at any major Customs office and not the port of exportation. This would be quicker and more efficient. Incidentally, I find it surprising that the submissions that I have received include the fact that—despite our entry to the EEC, with the supposed reduction of formal documentation—the number of Customs officers at Dover, Folkestone and Newhaven has doubled since we entered the Common Market.
There has also been adverse comment about the export conferences—not so much about holding the conferences, which are very much welcomed, but the fact that exporters are asked particularly to bring along one man from the shop floor. It is difficult to see how one man from the shop floor can be particularly involved in an export conference. There should be room for flexibility. The BOTB might well wish to have one of the technical people attend, or a specialist in a particular field of exporting, as opposed to the export director. To suggest that there should be one man from the shop floor seems to me idiotic.
I do not expect from the Minister this afternoon any commitment other than to have another look at the BOTB budget as a whole, and particularly at the amount of money that we are spending on joint ventures. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance that our exporters attach to joint ventures and outward missions. The chambers of commerce have told me that they remain ready to help in any way possible to take over some of the administrative burden of running these ventures.
If the Government wish to see the volume of manufactured exports rise, as I believe they do and as we on the Opposition Benches do, they must listen to exporters and reinstate these cuts, which are not particularly large in financial terms but will have a considerable effect on future exports. If the cuts are reinstated, we can all look forward to a major expansion of our exports.

4.34 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) to discuss the important subject of exports and the rôle played by the Government's export services to back up the efforts of British industry. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of valuable points, and I shall try to reply to some of them in the time that is left to me.
In the three months ending April, Britain earned its first surplus on current account, taking three months together, since the summer of 1972. The surplus of £126 million in these months compares with a deficit of £565 million in the previous three months. The improvement owes much to the favourable shift in the balance of trade in oil, reflecting the build up of North Sea oil production, and the drawing down of speculative stocks amassed in advance of the recent OPEC price rise.
However, North Sea oil will not solve all our problems by any means. We need to use the breathing space that it will provide to carry through the industrial reconstruction that is required to improve our competitive edge in world markets and to maintain the thrust of our exports. That is why I value the debate today.
Since 1972 the Department of Trade export services and promotional aids as no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows, have been supervised by the British Overseas Trade Board. Information about tariffs, overseas Government regulations, export opportunities and market conditions overseas are largely provided free. Modest charges are made for the Export Intelligence Service to which slightly over 7,500 exporters subscribe. Some charges are also made for help in finding agents overseas and for studies and reports on overseas firms.
I turn briefly to export credit insurance facilities. In addition to its traditional export credit insurance and finance functions, the Export Credit Guarantee Department has introduced, during the last year, several other new facilities to help exporters. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bond support. There has been considerable development in this field with performance and tender bonds, project participants insolvency cover, pre-shipment finance, and the temporary cost escalation scheme.
The hon. Gentleman hoped that there would be early and close contact between the ECGD at senior level and the management of the joint stock banks. I can assure hon. Gentleman that there is already the closest relationship on a joint basis between the ECGD and the clearing and merchant banks. Indeed, I am sure that it is felt on both sides that the relationship works well. The most recent development has been the introduction of improved cover for contracts expressed, and sometimes financed, in foreign currencies. This improved cover enables exporters to take better advantage of the benefits that may accrue from quoting prices in foreign currency and, for business carried out through medium and long-term credit, also represents important public expenditure and balance of payments benefit.
Frequently this new financial assistance takes the form of financial assistance for participation in overseas trade fairs—to which the hon. Gentleman devoted much time in his speech—and also for inward and outward missions. Financial help is also available for export marketing research. Some 340 research projects received support in 1976 and towards the pre-contractual costs of participants in


large overseas projects. The BOTB also provides support from time to time for non-official trade bodies at home and abroad.
As for charges for services—on which the hon. Gentleman put such emphasis—the main part of the Government's expenditure in this field relates to the provision of a worldwide advisory service which is available to exporters through the Board's organisation at home and through overseas posts. That is provided free. However there are a number of specific services, such as joint ventures for overseas trade fairs, the Export Intelligence Service and the Agency Finding Service, where it is the Board's policy to apply a charge for a specific purpose—not just for revenue collection—in order to ensure that the services are responsibly used and that waste is minimised. At the same time it helps to ensure that the services are carefully tailored to the real needs of exporters.
It is a fair point that if services are not used, that is the best indication that we have of a need for change. The considered opinion of the Board—and I naturally agree—is that the charge is a healthy way of ensuring that both the users and the providers of the service are kept constantly on their toes.
We need to keep this in proportion. Even with the proposed increases that the Board is considering—and I must emphasise that, as I am sure the hon. Member appreciates, the decision has not yet been taken and will not be taken for some time because we have just issued the consultation paper—the charges are extremely modest in relation to the cost of providing the service. For example, the amount recovered through charges on the cost of mounting joint ventures at overseas trade fairs is currently 8—per cent. If the charging proposals currently under consideration by the Board were implemented, this would be increased next year to only about 15 per cent. That is taking account of the special provisions for newcomers.
Discrimination between different industrial sectors, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, would be inappropriate. It would disadvantage certain sectors as against others on the basis of no obvious rationale. Clearly it would be of help to the 30 or 40 key sectors in the industrial

strategy, but sectors outside would justifiably ask why they were being discriminated against.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned many details—I propose to cover only a few—about what industry believes to be the projected effects of the proposed increases in charges. I welcome the initiative that he has taken. I hope that he will let us have the information in full so that we can consider it in the Department and pass it on for full consideration by the BOTB.
The close association of the Diplomatic Service posts overseas, the regional offices of the Department of Industry, the commercial relations and exports divisions of the Department of Trade, the Central Office of Information and the Export Credits Guarantee Department at home provide these wide-ranging services which have generally been applauded by their users.
It is difficult to measure their value in objective terms. The best measure is the extent of their use. The overall workload increased by 34 per cent. in 1976 over 1972. Export House and regional offices sent out nearly a quarter of a million letters, telexes and cables in 1976, about 10,000 visits were made to firms and 6,500 visits were received from firms. Overseas more than 50,000 British business visitors called on Posts. The Export Credits Guarantee Department now covers 38 per cent. of British exports.
That gives an indication of the increasing and considerable use that is made of the service. I am not at all complacent. Improvements can be made, and we wish to make them so far as we can within the public expenditure constraints which face us. The record has by and large been good.
The overall cost of Government resources allocated to export promotion, excluding ECGD, was estimated at about £58 million net in 1976–77. Although the BOTB agreed that it should make a contribution to the Government's programme to reduce public expenditure and Civil Service manpower from 1977–78, it has been possible to arrange cuts—the cuts on the direct budget of £19 million are less than £750,000, so we should get that in proportion—mostly at the margin of its services, and deliberately so. Some


pruning and economies have been made in the operation of basic services.
It has been necessary to make some reductions in a number of less important participations in overseas trade fairs planned for 1977–78. There have been consultations on the revised programme with sponsoring organisations to ensure that the cuts—

The Question having been proposed after Four o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Five o'clock till Monday 13th June, pursuant to the resolution of the House yesterday.